Roe Rage - Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash PDF

Yale Law School
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
1-1-2007
Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and

Backlash
Robert C. Post
Yale Law School
Reva B. Siegel
Yale Law School
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers
Recommended Citation
Post, Robert C. and Siegel, Reva B., "Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash" (2007). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper
169.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/169
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship at Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship Series by an authorized administrator of Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. For
more information, please contact julian.aiken@yale.edu.
Roe Rage:
Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash
Robert Post*
Reva Siegel*
Progressive confidence in constitutional adjudication peaked during

the Warren Court and its immediate aftermath. Courts were celebrated as
"fora of principle,"' privileged sites for the diffusion of human reason.
But progressive attitudes toward constitutional adjudication have recently
begun to splinter and diverge. 2 Some progressives, following the call of
"popular constitutionalism," have argued that the Constitution should be
taken away from courts and restored to the people.3 Others have empha-
sized the urgent need for judicial caution and minimalism.4
One of the many reasons for this shift is that progressives have be-
come fearful that an assertive judiciary can spark "a political and cultural
backlash that may ... hurt, more than" help, progressive values.5 A gen-
eration ago, progressives responded to violent backlash against Brown v.
Board of Education6 by attempting to develop principles of constitutional
* David Boies Professor of Law, Yale University.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale University. Many thanks to Bruce
Ackerman, Jack Balkin, David Barron, Eric Citron, Bill Eskridge, Owen Fiss, Barry Friedman,
Sarah Gordon, Mark Graber, Michael Graetz, David Hollinger, Dawn Johnsen, Amy Kapczyn-
ski, Michael Klarman, Scott Lemieux, Sandy Levinson, Joanne Meyerowitz, Sasha Post,
Judith Resnik, Neil Siegel, and Christine Stansell for comments on the manuscript. We had
the pleasure of working with an extraordinary group of Harvard and Yale research assis-
tants on this Essay, including Nick Barnaby, Robert Cacace, Kathryn Eidmann, Rebecca
Engel, Sarah Hammond, Kara Loewentheil, Sandra Pullman, Sandeep Ramesh, Sandra Vasher,
and Justin Weinstein-Tull.
' Ronald Dworkin, The Forum of Principle, 56 N.Y.U. L. REV. 469 (1981).
2 Mark Kende observes: "It used to be easy. Liberals generally liked the U.S. Supreme
Court. Conservatives were skeptical." Mark S. Kende, Foreword, 54 DRAKE L. REV. 791,
791 (2006). But now, he writes, quoting Bob Dylan, "The times, they are a-changin'." Id.
3 LARRY D. KRAMER, THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES: POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM AND
JUDICIAL REVIEW (2004); MARK TUSHNET, TAKING THE CONSTITUTION AWAY FROM THE
COURTS (1999); ROBIN WEST, PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM: RECONSTRUCTING THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 281-318 (1994); Owen Fiss, Between Supremacy and Exclusiv-
ity, in THE LEAST EXAMINED BRANCH: THE ROLE OF LEGISLATURES IN THE CONSTITU-
TIONAL STATE 452-67 (Richard W. Bauman & Tsvi Kahana eds., 2006); Jeremy Waldron,
The Core of the Case Against JudicialReview, 115 YALE L.J. 1346 (2006).
4
CASS R. SUNSTEIN, ONE CASE AT A TIME: JUDICIAL MINIMALISM ON THE SUPREME
COURT 54 (1999); Martha M. Ertman, Contractual Purgatoryfor Sexual Marginorities:
Not Heaven, but Not Hell Either, 73 DENV. U. L. REV. 1107 (1996); Girardeau A. Spann,
Proposition209, 47 DUKE L.J. 187 (1997).
5 Kende, supra note 2, at 792.
6347 U.S. 483 (1954). For a discussion, see Reva B. Siegel, Equality Talk: Antisubordi-
nation and Anticlassification Values in ConstitutionalStruggles over Brown, 117 HARV. L.
REV. 1470 (2004) [hereinafter Siegel, Equality Talk] (tracing the influence of movements
HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 373 2007

Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [Vol. 42
theory they hoped would justify controversial decisions.7 Today, there are
many progressives who have lost confidence in this project. They fear that
adjudication may cause backlash of the kind they attribute to Roe v.
Wade,' which they believe gave birth to the New Right. Stunned by the fe-
rocity of the conservative counterattack, progressives have concluded that
the best tactic is to take no action that might provoke populist resentments.
In our view the pendulum has swung too far, from excessive confidence
in courts to excessive despair. In this Essay we offer a more realistic ac-
count of how courts actually function in our democracy. We propose a
model that we call "democratic constitutionalism" to analyze the under-
standings and practices by which constitutional rights have historically
been established in the context of cultural controversy. Democratic con-
stitutionalism views interpretive disagreement as a normal condition for
the development of constitutional law.9
The premise of democratic constitutionalism is that the authority of
the Constitution depends on its democratic legitimacy, upon the Constitu-
tion's ability to inspire Americans to recognize it as their Constitution.
This belief is sustained by traditions of popular engagement that author-
ize citizens to make claims about the Constitution's meaning and to op-
pose their government-through constitutional lawmaking, electoral poli-
tics, and the institutions of civil society-when they believe that it is not
respecting the Constitution. Government officials, in turn, both resist and
respond to these citizen claims. These complex patterns of exchange have
historically shaped the meaning of our Constitution.
Courts play a special role in this process. Courts exercise a distinc-
tive form of authority to declare and enforce rights, which they enjoy by
virtue of the Constitution and the norms of professional legal reason that
they employ. Citizens look to courts to protect important social values and to
constrain government whenever it exceeds constitutional limitations. Yet
judicial authority to enforce the Constitution, like the authority of all gov-
ernment officials, ultimately depends on the confidence of citizens. If courts
interpret the Constitution in terms that diverge from the deeply held con-
victions of the American people, Americans will find ways to communi-
cate their objections and resist judicial judgments.
for and against Brown on subsequent judicial interpretation of Brown's meaning).

7 This work sought to address what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-
majoritarian difficulty." ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE
SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 16-23 (2d ed., Yale Univ. Press 1986) (1962).
For a wide-ranging survey of the effort to create constitutional theory, see Richard H.
Fallon, Jr., How To Choose a ConstitutionalTheory, 87 CAL. L. REV. 535 (1999).
8410 U.S. 113 (1973).
9See, e.g., Robert C. Post & Reva B. Siegel, Equal Protection by Law: FederalAnti-
discriminationLegislation After Morrison and Kimel, 110 YALE L.J. 441, 487-502 (2000)
(describing how sit-ins shaped understandings of federal civil rights power); Siegel, Equality
Talk, supra note 6 (showing how the meaning of Brown emerged from a half century of
struggles over the decision's enforcement).

2007] Roe Rage
These historically recurring patterns of resistance reflect a deep logic

of the American constitutional order, which is shaped by competing com-
mitments to the rule of law and to self-governance. Democratic constitu-
tionalism analyzes the practices employed by citizens and government offi-
cials to reconcile these potentially conflicting commitments. Such prac-
tices are everywhere around us. Through multiple channels, some explicit
and others implicit, Americans have historically mobilized for and against
juridical efforts to enforce the Constitution. Courts exercising profes-
sional legal reasoning resist and at times respond to popular claims on the
Constitution.
Because traditional scholarship has tended to confuse the Constitu-
tion with judicial decisionmaking, it has imagined resistance to courts as
a threat to the Constitution itself. This is a mistake. To criticize a judicial
decision as betraying the Constitution is to speak from a normative identifi-
cation with the Constitution. Citizens who invoke the Constitution to
criticize courts associate the Constitution with understandings they find
normatively compelling and believe to be binding on others. When citizens
speak about their most passionately held commitments in the language of
a shared constitutional tradition, they invigorate that tradition. In this way,
even resistance to judicial interpretation can enhance the Constitution's
democratic legitimacy.
Democratic constitutionalism thus offers a fresh perspective on the
potentially constructive effects of backlash. This is not the common view
in the legal academy, where law-abidingness and deference to professionals
are generally prized. Backlash challenges the presumption that citizens
should acquiesce in judicial decisions that speak in the disinterested voice of
law. Backlash twice challenges the authority of this voice. In the name of
a democratically responsive Constitution, backlash questions the autono-
mous authority of constitutional law. And in the name of political self-
ownership, backlash defies the presumption that lay citizens should with-
out protest defer to the constitutional judgments of legal professionals.
These two challenges go to the core of judicial review. Judges regu-
larly assert the authority of their constitutional judgments by invoking
the distinction between law and politics. They rely on professional legal
reason to separate law from politics. If judges appear to yield to political
pressure, the public may lose confidence in the authority of courts to de-
clare constitutional law.
This tension between law and politics is pervasive in our constitu-
tional democracy. We can see the same dilemma structuring debate over the
confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. 0 Senate hearings must affirm
the independence of Justices, so that the Supreme Court can proclaim a
10Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Questioning Justice: Law and Politicsin Judicial Confirma-
tion Hearings, 115 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 38 (2006), http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/
0l/post-and-siegel.html.

376 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [Vol. 42
rule of law uncorrupted by merely partisan interests. Yet Senate hearings

must also reassure the American people that new appointees to the Supreme
Court will interpret the Constitution in ways that are responsive to the
democratic will of the people." These contradictory imperatives transform
confirmation hearings into scenes of high drama and much confusion.
When successful, Senate hearings draw Americans of disparate views into
debate about the Constitution, even as they dramatize the Constitution as
a foundational source of law that exists prior to political struggles over its
meaning.
The political grammar of backlash is similar. Backlash expresses the
desire of a free people to influence the content of their Constitution, yet
backlash also threatens the independence of law. Backlash is where the in-
tegrity of the rule of law clashes with the need of our constitutional order
for democratic legitimacy.
We propose the model of democratic constitutionalism as a lens
through which to understand the structural implications of this conflict. We
theorize the unique traditions of argument by which citizens make claims
about the Constitution's meaning and the specialized repertoire of tech-
niques by which officials respond to these claims. Democratic constitu-
tionalism describes how our constitutional order actually negotiates the
tension between the rule of law and self-governance. It shows how con-
stitutional meaning bends to the insistence of popular beliefs and yet si-
multaneously retains integrity as law. 2
Our Essay proceeds in three Parts. In Part I, we sketch the model of
democratic constitutionalism, with particular emphasis on its implications
for understanding the phenomenon of backlash. Although the costs of back-
lash are well recognized, democratic constitutionalism identifies certain
underappreciated benefits of backlash. Backlash can promote constitutional
solidarity and invigorate the democratic legitimacy of constitutional in-
terpretation. Democratic constitutionalism suggests that it is neither fea-
sible nor desirable for courts to elevate conflict avoidance into a funda-
mental principle of constitutional adjudication.
Because fear of backlash has become an important theme for con-
temporary jurisprudence, we focus in Part II on the work of three emi-
nent theorists of backlash: Michael Klarman, William Eskridge, and Cass
Sunstein. We argue that each of these theorists tends in his own way to
overestimate the costs of backlash and to underestimate its benefits. Con-
"Id.
12See infra note 24 and accompanying text. We have pursued these themes in much of
our recent work. See, e.g., Robert Post, Foreword: Fashioningthe Legal Constitution: Cul-
ture, Courts, and Law, 117 HARV. L. REV. 4, 110-11 (2003); Robert C. Post & Reva B.
Siegel, Legislative Constitutionalismand Section Five Power: Policentric Interpretationof
the Family and Medical Leave Act, 112 YALE L.J. 1943 (2003); Reva B. Siegel, Constitutional
Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the de Facto
ERA, 94 CAL. L. REV. 1323 (2006).

2007] Roe Rage
temporary scholarly debate does not sufficiently appreciate the ways that
citizen engagement in constitutional conflict may contribute to social cohe-
sion in a normatively heterogeneous polity. Our analysis does not yield a
general normative methodology for deciding constitutional cases, and indeed
we doubt whether any such methodology actually exists. But democratic
constitutionalism does elucidate how competing system values shape the
process of constitutional decisionmaking.
For those who counsel courts to avoid controversy, Roe illustrates
the terrible consequences of judicial decisionmaking that provokes intense
opposition. Conventional legal scholarship has it that Roe rage was a re-
sponse to judicial overreaching and that legislative reform might have liber-
alized access to abortion without backlash if only the Court had stayed its
hand. 3 Part III reviews established research on Roe's reception that ques-
tions this conventional account. Although Roe was immediately subject
to jurisprudential critique, political mobilization against the decision ex-
pressed opposition to the liberalization of abortion law that had begun
years before Roe was decided. Drawing on more recent scholarship, we
show that mobilization against the liberalization of abortion law expanded
over the decade into what we now recognize as Roe rage-a broad-based
social movement hostile to legal efforts to secure the equality of women
and the separation of church and state. Roe rage opposes ideals of indi-
vidualism and secularism that lie at the foundation of our modern consti-
tutional order.
Understood in this way, Roe rage poses hard questions for progres-
sives who suggest that courts should systematically decide cases so as to
avoid backlash. Although law professors may care deeply about professional
questions of judicial technique, citizens who have mobilized against Roe
care chiefly about matters of substance. These citizens act from a consti-
tutional vision that is intensely concerned not only about abortion, but also
about the role of women, sex, family, and religion in American life. They
will use every available political means to press this constitutional vision
on courts, even if progressives embrace constitutional theories that advise
courts to avoid conflict.
Progressives therefore need more than a theory of constitutional
conflict avoidance; they need a theory about how to protect constitutional
ideals under conditions of constitutional conflict. What is more, they need
substantive constitutional ideals. Just as those who supported Brown in
the face of fierce resistance needed a vision of America living in fidelity
to its constitutional commitments, so now progressives require a theory
that will enable them to maintain constitutional faith in the midst of Roe
rage.
1"See, e.g., infra notes 180-182 and accompanying text.

I. BACKLASH AND THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONALISM
There may be constitutional provisions of which it can be said, as Larry

Alexander and Frederick Schauer have written, that "an important-perhaps
the important-function of law is its ability to settle authoritatively what
is to be done."' 4 Settlement enables law to elicit "socially beneficial co-
operative behavior" and to generate "solutions to Prisoners' Dilemmas and
other problems of coordination."' 5 Settlement might well be essential with
respect to constitutional provisions that establish the constitutive rules of
the national government, as when the Constitution decrees that represen-
tation in the House shall be based upon population or when the Constitu-
tion stipulates that a federal law must be enacted with the concurrence of
both houses of Congress. Backlash with regard to such rules might merely
throw sand in the gears, frustrating the capacity of law to provide the
benefits of coordination.
But there are many provisions of the Constitution that do not merely
establish constitutive rules of government. Paradigmatically associated with
rights contained in the Fourteenth, Eighth, and First Amendments, these
provisions tend to be open ended and to invite constitutional decisionmaking
that expresses national ideals. Americans have often thought it more im-
portant that constitutional law correctly determine the substance of these
provisions than that constitutional law merely settle their content. Back-
lash to judicial decisions interpreting these provisions demonstrates that
for some constitutional questions, authoritative settlement is neither pos-
sible nor desirable.
Legal interpretation of these open-ended provisions typically involves
the expression of national values like equality, liberty, dignity, family, or
faith, which establish a "realm of meaning"' 6 that Robert Cover has memo-
rably called "nomos.' 7 Nomos matters because it expresses a national
"identity."' 8 Nomos is controversial because the American people are het-
erogeneous in their values and visions of a good society. This diversity is
plainly visible in debates over affirmative action, abortion, and school
14Larry Alexander & Frederick Schauer, On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpreta-

tion, 110 HARV. L. REV. 1359, 1377 (1997). The full passage reads:
Thus, an important-perhaps the important-function of law is its ability to settle

authoritatively what is to be done. That function is performed by all law; but be-
cause the Constitution governs all other law, it is especially important for the mat-
ters it covers to be settled. To the extent that the law is interpreted differently by
different interpreters, an overwhelming probability for many socially important
issues, it has failed to perform the settlement function.
Id.
I51d.
' at 1371.
16 Robert M. Cover, Foreword: Nomos and Narrative,97 HARV. L. REV. 4, 28 (1983).
7 d. at 4 (emphasis omitted).
18Id. at 28.

2007] Roe Rage
prayer. Judicial decisions addressing these issues provoke popular resis-

tance because they are topics about which Americans disagree and care
passionately. Popular resistance signifies that Americans desire officials
to enforce the Constitution in ways that reflect their understanding of consti-
tutional ideals.' 9 This desire cannot be ignored. A large and persistent gap
between professional and popular understandings of the Constitution, about
questions that matter to the public, can threaten the democratic legiti-
macy of constitutional law.
In this Essay we propose a model for understanding official efforts
to enforce the Constitution under conditions of public controversy. We
call this model "democratic constitutionalism." Democratic constitution-
alism affirms the role of representative government and mobilized citi-
zens in enforcing the Constitution at the same time as it affirms the role
of courts in using professional legal reason to interpret the Constitution.
Unlike popular constitutionalism, democratic constitutionalism does not
seek to take the Constitution away from courts. Democratic constitution-
alism recognizes the essential role of judicially enforced constitutional
rights in the American polity. Unlike a juricentric focus on courts, democ-
ratic constitutionalism appreciates the essential role that public engage-
ment plays in guiding and legitimating the institutions and practices of
judicial review. Constitutional judgments based on professional legal rea-
son can acquire democratic legitimacy only if professional reason is rooted
in popular values and ideals. Democratic constitutionalism observes that
adjudication is embedded in a constitutional order that regularly invites ex-
change between officials and citizens over questions of constitutional mean-
ing.
Our concern in this Essay is what happens when judicially elaborated
constitutional law conflicts with constitutional meanings generated else-
where within our constitutional system. Backlash is one possible result of
this conflict. Viewed from the systemic perspective of the overarching
American constitutional order, backlash seeks to maintain the democratic
responsiveness of constitutional meaning. Viewed from the perspective of
courts, backlash is a threat to the maintenance of legal authority and con-
trol. Democratic constitutionalism invites us to analyze backlash from these
distinct but interdependent perspectives.
We begin from history. Americans have continuously struggled to
shape the content of constitutional meaning. They did so with regard to
19Which constitutional issues become controversial in this way is a matter of historical

contingency and circumstance. Sometimes Court decisions intervene in "culture war[s]" about
national ideals that are already fierce and ongoing. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 652
(1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Sometimes Court decisions are used by organized groups to
inspire political mobilization. Sometimes Court opinions create opposition by overturning
established ways of life or by redistributing the goods of status and privilege. See J. M.
Balkin, The Constitution of Status, 106 YALE L.J. 2313 (1997). And sometimes groups
struggling for recognition and legitimacy turn to the Court to demand that they be ac-
knowledged within constitutional doctrine. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

questions of race in the 1960s and questions of gender in the 1970s, and
we are now in the midst of such a struggle about questions of abortion, gay
rights, and religion. Americans have used a myriad of different methods
to shape constitutional understandings-sit-ins, protests, political mobili-
zation, congressional use of section five powers, ordinary federal and state
legislation, state court litigation, and so on. These struggles are premised
on the belief that the Constitution should express a nomos that Americans
can recognize as their own.
Through these struggles, Americans have consistently sought to em-
body their constitutional ideals within the domain of judicially enforce-
able constitutional law.2" Constitutional ideals enforced by courts express
national identity; they radiate gravitas and consequence. When entrenched
through the professional logic of legal reason, otherwise contested under-
standings of the nation's ideals receive official endorsement and applica-
tion by those who feel obligated to obey the law. They become guides for
the juridical organization of society, wielding enormous symbolic power
and shaping the social meaning of innumerable nonlegal transactions.
Americans have thus found it important that courts articulate a vi-
sion of the Constitution that reflects their own ideals. The legitimacy of the
American constitutional system has come to depend on the many prac-
tices Americans have developed to ensure the democratic accountability
of their constitutional law. No doubt constitutional lawmaking plays an
important role in sustaining the democratic legitimacy of the American
constitutional order, yet because the difficulty of lawmaking is so great and
its successful achievement so infrequent, lawmaking alone cannot sustain
the Constitution's democratic legitimacy. Article V amendments are so very
rare that they cannot provide an effective avenue for connecting constitu-
tional law to popular commitments. 2' And if twenty-seven constitutional
amendments cannot ensure democratic accountability, neither can three
or four discrete "constitutional moments .22
More persistent and nuanced forms of exchange are required to main-
tain the authority of those who enforce constitutional law in situations of
aggravated dispute. Democratic constitutionalism examines the many prac-
tices that facilitate an ongoing and continuous communication between
courts and the public.23 These practices. must be robust enough to prevent
20 See G. MCCLOSKEY, THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT 10-11 (2005).

ROBERT
21 Because the constitutional amendment process is far easier in the states, there is a
developing literature on the distinctive role of amendments in state constitutional culture.
See, e.g., Douglas S. Reed, Popular Constitutionalism:Toward a Theory of State Constitu-
tional Meanings, 30 RUTGERS L.J. 871 (1999).
22 See generally Bruce Ackerman, A Generation of Betrayal?, 65 FORDHAM L. REV.
1519 (1997).
23
Given the infrequency of constitutional lawmaking, the American constitutional

order seems to rely on practices of participatory engagement to deliver forms of

2007] Roe Rage
constitutional alienation and to maintain solidarity in a normatively het-

erogeneous community.
One important avenue for influencing constitutional decisionmaking
is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. 24 There can be public pres-
sure to choose Justices who are likely to express popular commitments.
Those opposed to the innovations of the Warren Court, for example, were
attracted to President Reagan's pledge to halt the slide toward "the radi-
cal egalitarianism and expansive civil libertarianism of the Warren Court
.... -25 They threw their support behind Reagan because he pledged to
'2 6
nominate Justices who would adopt a "philosophy of judicial restraint.
It is well documented that the Reagan Justice Department self-consciously
and successfully used judicial appointments to alter existing practices of
2
constitutional interpretation. 1
Presidential politics and Supreme Court nominations, however, are
blunt and infrequent methods of affecting the content of constitutional law.
A more democratically dispersed and continuous pathway is the practice
of norm contestation, which seeks to transform the values that underlie
judicial interpretations of the Constitution. The Reagan administration,
for example, used litigation and presidential rhetoric to challenge and dis-
2
credit the basic ideals that had generated Warren Court precedents. 1
The current controversy over same-sex marriage illustrates many of
the dynamics of norm contestation. Much of this controversy has transpired
democratic responsiveness that we often associate with formal practices of consti-

tutional lawmaking .... Popular engagement in constitutional deliberation sus-
tains the democratic authority of original acts of constitutional lawmaking and
supplements constitutional lawmaking as a source of the Constitution's democ-
ratic authority.
Siegel, supra note 12, at 1342-43.
24Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson, Understandingthe Constitutional Revolution,
87 VA. L. REV. 1045 (2001); see also Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson, The Processes
of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State,
75 FORDHAM L. REV. 489 (2006) (arguing that judicial appointments have facilitated an
emerging "National Surveillance State").
25 Edwin Meese, III, The Supreme Court of the United States: Bulwark of a Limited
Constitution, 27 S. TEx. L. REV. 455, 464 (1986).
26 Ronald Reagan, Statement on Senate Confirmation of Sandra Day O'Connoras an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1981 PUB. PAPERS 819 (Sept.
21, 1981), available at http://www.presidencyucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44281. For a dis-
cussion, see Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Originalism as a Political Practice:The Right's
Living Constitution,75 FORDHAM L. REV. 545 (2006).
27See generally Dawn E. Johnsen, Ronald Reagan and the Rehnquist Court on Con-
gressional Power: PresidentialInfluences on ConstitutionalChange, 78 IND. L.J. 363 (2003);
Debra Cassens Moss, The Policy and the Rhetoric of Ed Meese, A.B.A. J., Feb. 1, 1987, at
64. For a discussion of the provisions of the 1980 and 1984 Republican Party platforms on
judicial
28
nominations and abortion, see infra note 221.
See OFFICE OF LEGAL POL'Y, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, GUIDELINES ON CONSTITU-
TIONAL LITIGATION 3 (Feb. 19, 1988), availableat http://islandia.law.yale.edu/acs/conference/
meese-memos/guidelines.pdf; Edwin Meese, III, A Return to the Founders, NAT'L L.J.,
June 28, 2004, at 22; Meese, supra note 25, at 465-66.

within the context of state court decisions applying state constitutional

law.29 Although these decisions are, as a matter of legal doctrine, irrelevant
to the interpretation of the federal Constitution, state court opinions about
state law are venues within which national values are continually con-
tested and reshaped.3" Understanding the recent controversy about same-
sex marriage thus requires us to appreciate the many subtle ways that
constitutional norms circulate among divergent actors in the American
constitutional system, traveling along informal pathways that do not always
conform to official accounts of constitutional lawmaking and interpreta-
tion.
Second-wave feminism offers a rich example of successful norm con-
testation. As late as 1970, it was thought that distinctions based upon sex
were natural and proper, and the Equal Protection Clause was accordingly
interpreted to have no particular application to sex discrimination." But
as women organized to contest traditional understandings of gender roles,
common sense began to evolve. Discrimination based on sex came to seem
unreasonable. Because judges interpret constitutional text to express their
implicit understanding of the world, the Court began to read the Fourteenth
Amendment to require elevated scrutiny for classifications based on sex.32
The Court altered its understanding of the Equal Protection Clause even
though the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA"), which proposed to use the
procedures of Article V to amend the Constitution to prohibit discrimination
based on sex, was never ratified.33
Democratic constitutionalism suggests that backlash can be under-
stood as one of many practices of norm contestation through which the
29 See In re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 (Ct. App. 2006); Baehr v. Lewin, 852
P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993); Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003);
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006); Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d I (N.Y.
2006); Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).
30Cf Robert M. Cover, The Uses of JurisdictionalRedundancy: Interest, Ideology, and
Innovation, 22 WM. & MARY L. REV. 639 (1981) (arguing that jurisdictional overlap or
redundancy in the American legal system persists because of its utility for litigants exercis-
ing the dispute resolution and norm articulation functions of adjudication); Paul W. Kahn,
Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1147 (1993)
(analyzing how state court decisions can be conceived as contributing to a common consti-
tutional culture); Judith Resnik, Law's Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dia-
logues, and Federalism'sMultiple Ports of Entry, 115 YALE L.J. 1564 (2006) (observing
that America's federal structure also serves as a path for the movement of international
rights across borders).
National constitutional ideals are also influenced by other actors, like Congress in the
enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, 2419
(1996), the various state referenda that have spoken to this question, and those who have
proposed a federal constitutional amendment on the subject.
31See, e.g., Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961); Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872).
32See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190
(1976).
33The story is told in Siegel, supra note 12. These changes even affected the views of
a single Justice during the course of his career. See Reva B. Siegel, You've Come a Long
Way, Baby: Rehnquist's New Approach to Pregnancy Discriminationin Hibbs, 58 STAN. L.
REV. 1871 (2006).

2007] Roe Rage
public seeks to influence the content of constitutional law. It is a com-

monplace of history and political science that these practices can eventu-
ally be successful because, in the long run, our constitutional law is plainly
susceptible to political influence.34 Our "[c]onstitutional law is histori-
cally conditioned and politically shaped."35 The democratic legitimacy of
our constitutional law in part depends on its responsiveness to popular
opinion. 36 The ongoing possibility of shaping constitutional meaning
helps explain why Americans remain faithful to their Constitution even
when their constitutional views do not prevail. 37 Democratic constitution-
31See Barry Friedman, The Importance of Being Positive: The Nature and Function of
JudicialReview, 72 U. CIN. L. REV. 1257, 1278 (2004) ("The claim here simply is that the
Court's dependence on the other branches to enforce decrees and to refrain from attacking
the institution of judicial review necessarily acts as a moderating force[,]" ensuring that
judicial review is never wholly independent of politics; positive analysis questions the
extent to which judicial review imposes limits on majority rule and so can function either
as democracy's "hope" or "threat") [hereinafter Friedman, The Importance of Being Posi-
tive]; Barry Friedman, Mediated Popular Constitutionalism, 101 MICH. L. REV. 2596
(2003); Mark A. Graber, Constitutional Politics and Constitutional Theory: A Misunder-
stood and Neglected Relationship, 27 LAW & Soc. INQUIRY 309 (2002); William Mishler
& Reginald S. Sheehan, The Supreme Court as a CountermajoritarianInstitution? The
Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions, 87 AM. POL. Sci. REV. 87 (1993).
Originalism sometimes proffers a picture of constitutional law as entirely immune to po-
litical influence, but this picture is obviously untrue. See Post & Siegel, supra note 26.
35H. JEFFERSON POWELL, A COMMUNITY BUILT ON WORDS: THE CONSTITUTION IN
HISTORY AND POLITICS 6 (2002); see RAN HIRSCHL, TOWARDS JURISTOCRACY: THE ORIGINS
AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTIONALISM 12 (2004); GEORGE 1. LOVELL,
LEGISLATIVE DEFERRALS: STATUTORY AMBIGUITY, JUDICIAL POWER, AND AMERICAN DE-
MOCRACY 45 (2003); KEVIN J. MCMAHON, RECONSIDERING ROOSEVELT ON RACE: How
THE PRESIDENCY PAVED THE ROAD TO BROWN 214 (2004); KEITH E. WHITTINGTON, PO-
LITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: THE PRESIDENCY, THE SUPREME COURT,
AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY 5 (2007); Paul Frymer, Acting When
Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Un-
ions, 1935-85, 97 AM. POL. Sci. REV. 483 (2003); Howard Gillman, How Political Parties
Can Use the Courts To Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States,
1875-1891, 96 AM. POL. Sci. REV. 511, 512-13 (2002); Mark A. Graber, Constructing
JudicialReview, 8 ANN. REV. POL. SCI. 425 (2005); Keith E. Whittington, "Interpose Your
Friendly Hand": Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United
States Supreme Court, 99 AM. POL. ScI. REV. 583, 584-86 (2005); see also Mark A.
Graber, The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary, 7 STUD.
AM. POL. DEV. 35, 41-45 (1993).
36 On the relationship between democratic legitimation and the necessity for individu-
als to retain the capacity to express themselves so as to "experience the state as in some
way responsive to their own values and ideas," see Robert Post, Democracy and Equality,
603 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & Soc. SCl. 24, 27 (2006); Robert Post, Equality and Auton-
omy in First Amendment Jurisprudence,95 MICH. L. REV. 1517, 1524 (1997).
37Siegel, supra note 12, at 1342-43:
In the United States, popular confidence that the Constitution is the People's is
sustained by understandings and practices that draw citizenry into engagement
with questions of constitutional meaning and enable communication between en-
gaged citizens and officials charged with enforcing the Constitution.
[Tihe amenability of constitutional decisionmakers to influence enables public

guidance of government officials, and promotes public attachment to government
officials. At the same time, the prospect of influencing officials shapes the manner

alism allows us to comprehend how the Constitution can continue to in-

38
spire loyalty and commitment despite persistent disagreement.
Democratic legitimacy, however, comes at a price, because constitu-
tional law defines its integrity precisely in terms of its independence from
political influence. From the internal perspective of the law, the law/politics
distinction is constitutive of legality. That is why courts proudly and in-
sistently proclaim themselves to be "mere instruments of the law." 39 Their
authority is to say "what the law is,"4 and the law's content is to be de-
termined by "essentially lawyers' work"'" that transpires within a space
of "principle and logic" '42 from which all political considerations are rig-
orously excluded. 43 A judge's duty is "to uphold the law and to follow the
dictates of the Constitution," not to "serve a constituency." "Judges.
are not political actors ....They must strive to do what is legally right, 4
all the more so when the result is not the one 'the home crowd' wants.
The very practices that ensure the democratic accountability of the
American constitutional system thus seem also to endanger the integrity
of American constitutional law. It is no simple matter for courts to find
ways of incorporating popular beliefs into the domain of legality while at
the same time maintaining fidelity to the demands of professional legal
reason.46 One might imagine this process as a series of "conversations
in which citizens relate to government officials and to each other. Because citi-
zens must enlist the voice and accommodate the views of others if they are to per-
suade officials charged with enforcing the Constitution, the quest to secure consti-
tutional recognition may promote forms of community identification, and not
merely exacerbate group division. In these and other ways, popular participation
in constitutional deliberation, and the role expectations that sustain it, underwrite
the legitimacy of government and the solidarity of a normatively heterogeneous
community.
38 See Louis MICHAEL SEIDMAN, OUR UNSETTLED CONSTITUTION: A NEW DEFENSE
OF CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 8-9 (2001) ("[A]n unsettled constitution

helps build a community founded on consent by enticing losers into a continuing conversa-
tion.").
39Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824).
40Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (I
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)).
41 ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW
46 (1997).
42 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
41Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 541 U.S. 913, 920 (2004) (Scalia, J., sitting alone)
("To expect judges to take account of political consequences-and to assess the high or
low degree of them-is to ask judges to do precisely what they should not do.").
'A Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 799 (2002) (Stevens, J., dissent-
ing).
45Id. at 806 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
46
[T]he fascinating thing about the Supreme Court has been that it blends orthodox
judicial functions with policy-making functions in a complex mixture ....But
though the judges do enter this realm of policy-making, they enter with their
robes on, and they can never (or at any rate seldom) take them off; they are both

2007] Roe Rage
between the Court and the people and their representatives, ' 4 7 but the
process is rarely as civilized and orderly as a conversation. The Court must
navigate a complex field of intense disagreement in order to produce an
account of constitutional law that is democratically legitimate and faith-
ful to norms of professional craft.
Exactly how the Court accomplishes this remarkable feat is insuffi-
ciently studied.48 Traditional legal scholarship has sought to identify meth-
ods of constitutional interpretation that will justify the Court's decisions
to those who might otherwise be disposed to oppose them. But while this
approach may give comfort to academics, we doubt that it has much po-
litical effect. Serious constitutional controversies, like all political con-
troversies, are not to be solved by some magical methodological trick.
Disagreement will not disappear merely because the Court has chosen to
frame its argument in one form or another.
Democratic constitutionalism invites us to pay close attention to how
the Court actually responds to conditions of disagreement and contesta-
tion. The contemporary constitutional law of sex discrimination, for ex-
ample, first appeared when the Court was able to perceive points of con-
vergence in the nation's understanding of women as equal citizens that
emerged within debates between those who opposed and those who em-
braced the ERA.49 By consolidating these understandings into doctrine,
the Court rapidly developed a Fourteenth Amendment gender discrimina-
tion jurisprudence that commanded astonishingly widespread support, de-
spite the ERA's defeat.5 0
Although the American constitutional system is rife with conflict,
there is nonetheless widespread interest in preserving the integrity of
constitutional law. This is because citizens who seek to embody their own
particular constitutional understandings in law have reason to preserve
the authority of the rule of law, even as they endeavor to influence the con-
tent of judicial decisionmaking. Those who wish to change the content of
constitutional law thus face a dilemma: they must sway courts to their
own constitutional values and yet they must also preserve the authority of
courts to speak for the Constitution in the name of an independent rule of
law.5'
empowered and restricted by their "courtly" attributes.
MCCLOSKEY, supra note 20, at 12.

47 ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS 91
(1970); see also Barry Friedman, Dialogue and JudicialReview, 91 MICH. L. REV. 577 (1993).
48 Some of the implications of this discussion for norms of professional craft are dis-
cussed in Robert C. Post & Neil S. Siegel, Theorizing the Law/Politics Distinction:Neutral
Principles,Affirmative Action, and the Enduring Legacy of Paul Mishkin, 95 CAL. L. REV.
(forthcoming 2007).
" Siegel, supra note 12.
50
Id.
1' For a useful account of departmentalism that explicitly theorizes this question, see
Keith E. Whittington, PresidentialChallenges to Judicial Supremacy and the Politics of Con-

Democratic constitutionalism invites us to explore how this dilemma

is actually mediated. In Stenberg v. Carhart,2 for example, the Court struck
down "a Nebraska law banning 'partial birth abortion"' 53 because the statute
did not contain a "health exception 5 4 allowing the procedure when nec-
essary to preserve the health of a mother. Antiabortion advocates responded
to Stenberg in a way that communicated complete disagreement with the
Court and yet also conveyed respect for the Court's institutional authority
to pronounce law. They pressed Congress to enact legislation resembling
the Nebraska law the Court had invalidated and to support this legislation
with congressional findings to the effect that facts indicate "that a partial-
birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.""
These dubious findings of fact 56 enabled congressional critics of Stenberg
to dissent from the Court's precedent while at the same time preserving
nominal allegiance to the rule of law.57 Although Congress directly chal-
lenged the Court,58 it stopped well short of outright defiance. In an opin-
ion whose five-to-four majority comprised only Justices appointed by Presi-
dents Reagan, Bush, and Bush-each elected on a platform pledged to
appoint judges to protect the lives of the unborn and traditional family
values 9-the Court responded by deferring to the congressional legisla-
stitutional Meaning, 33 POLITY 365 (2001).

52 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
53
1 d. at 921.
'Id. at 931.
11Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C.S. 1531 (LexisNexis 2006).
56See, e.g., Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 278, 287 (2d Cir. 2006); Planned
Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1163, 1175 (9th Cir. 2006), rev'd sub
nom. Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007).
17 See, e.g., 149 CoNo. REC. H4922, H4924 (remarks of Rep. Sensenbrenner):
In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-
birth abortion ban .... The Court ... held, on the basis of highly disputed factual
findings of the district court, that the law was required to include an exception for
partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
H.R. 760's new definition of partial-birth abortion addresses the Court's ... ob-
jection to the Nebraska law by including extensive congressional findings based
upon medical evidence received in a series of legislative hearings, that, contrary
to the factual findings of the district court in Stenberg, a partial-birth abortion is
never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health, poses serious risk to a
woman's health, and in fact is below the requisite standard of medical care.
H.R. 760's lack of a health exception is based upon Congress's factual determina-
tion that partial-birth abortion is a dangerous procedure that does not serve the
health of any woman. The Supreme Court has a long history, particularly in the
area of civil rights, of deferring to Congress's factual conclusions. In doing so,
the Court has recognized that Congress's institutional structure makes it better
suited than the judiciary to assess facts upon which it will make policy determina-
tions.
58 "The Act's sponsors left no doubt that their intention was to nullify our ruling in
Stenberg.'"Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1643 n.4 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
'9 See infra note 221 for the Republican Party platforms of 1980 and 1984. See also
Republican Party Platform of 2004, available at http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.

2007] Roe Rage
tion (although repudiating Congress's dubious factfinding) 6 and by sound-

ing for the first time notes of a new justification for restricting abortion:
6
the protection of women. 1
The American constitutional system has many such devices to allow
those who disagree with the Court to express their disagreement in ways that
appear to acknowledge the rule of law. 62 These devices are particularly
important to study in the context of backlash and resistance.
pdf; Republican Party Platform of 2000, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/

index.php?pid=25849 ("[Tihe unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life
which cannot be infringed .... Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of
that right against those who perform abortions .... We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."); Republican
Party Platform of 1988, available at http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/platforms/republican/rep.
988.html ("We applaud President Reagan's fine record of judicial appointments, and we
reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect
traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.").
60Carhart, 127 S. Ct. at 1637-38.
61 Id. at 1634-35. For a discussion of these new antiabortion themes, see infra text ac-
companying notes 258-260. See also Robert Post, Informed Consent to Abortion: A First
Amendment Analysis of Compelled Physician Speech, 2007 ILL. L. REV. 939; Reva B.
Siegel, The New Politics of Abortion: An Equality Analysis of Women-Protective Abortion
Restrictions, 2007 ILL. L. REV. 991.
62 We have analyzed doctrinal techniques the Court employs to mediate this tension in
our prior work. For example, we wrote:
The ambiguity created by the Katzenbach approach had allowed the contradictory
and often tension-filled relationship between political self-determination and the
rule of law to persist without either perspective stifling the other. By eliminating
this ambiguity and requiring Congress to speak only in the voice of a court, Garrett
is attempting to disable an important mechanism by which the nation maintains
democratic dialogue with its judicially enforced Constitution.
Robert C. Post & Reva B. Siegel, Protecting the Constitutionfrom the People: Juricentric
Restrictionson Section Five Power, 78 IND. L.J. 1, 42 (2003) (discussing the Court's delib-
erate deferral of the question whether civil rights statutes enacted under commerce and
Section Five powers were proper exercises of Section Five authority).
If nonjudicial actors should comply with law except in the most exceptional of
circumstances, it is a matter of some significance how we draw the boundary be-
tween constitutional law and the Constitution. The broader the reach of constitu-
tional law, the more nonjudicial actors are bound by the legal vision of courts, and
the more diminished is the space for the political creation of the Constitution ....
An important dimension of this boundary is the question of whether constitutional
law subsists in the principles and reasons advanced in judicial opinions, or
whether it is instead confined to the specific holdings of judicial judgments. There
is at present intense controversy on this question.
Robert C. Post & Reva B. Siegel, Popular Constitutionalism, Departmentalism, and Judi-
cial Supremacy, 92 CAL. L. REV. 1027, 1040 (2004) (discussing debate about the elements
of a judicial decision that are binding as law on nonjudicial actors).

II. BACKLASH AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARSHIP
The Oxford English Dictionary informs us that "backlash" initially

referred to "the jarring reaction or striking back of a wheel or set of con-
nected wheels in a piece of mechanism, when the motion is not uniform
or when sudden pressure is applied.' '63 The word very quickly became asso-
ciated with undesirable and counterproductive effects, as when cotton
would "'backlash' or wind and entangle itself round the rollers" of a cot-
ton gin,6 or a fishing reel would "backlash and snap off' a fish. 65 In the
twentieth century the "fatal backlash" 66 of an angler's reel became such a
common usage that advertisements boasted "Anti-back-lash ' 67 reels that
would cast with "Never a Backlash." 68 By the middle of the century the
scope of the word had expanded so that a libel suit could "backlash" '69 and
political figures could worry about "a backlash of opinion"7 in the con-
text of controversies involving labor strikes7' and the Marshall Plan.72
The word "backlash" began to be routinely applied to the political
arena during the civil rights movement, when the term developed a "wider
usage"73 that referred both to Southern resistance to civil rights-"the
backlash of a mortally stricken system of inequality" 74-and also to "the
631 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 867 (2d ed. 1989). For examples of this usage, see
Krajewski v. Pharr, 105 F. 514, 521 (5th Cir. 1900); Lindbladh v. C.E. Sheppard Co., 7 F.
Supp. 446, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 1933), aff'd, 72 F.2d 1015 (2d Cir. 1934); Woodworth Planing
Mach. Cases (E.D. Pa. 1852), reported in W.L.J. Sept. 1852, at 550; Holmes'Ship Steering
Apparatus, Sci. AM., May 9, 1857, at 273; E. M. ElBeheiry, Contouring Error Control of
Machine Tool Drives with Backlash Compensation, 220 PROC. INST. MECHANICAL ENGI-
NEERS PART I, J. SYSTEMS & CONTROL ENGINEERING 395, 395-410 (2006); Laws Govern
Steering, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 22, 1915, at X8. An 1846 Glossary of Mechanical Terms in the
first volume of Scientific American defined backlash as "the hobbling movement of a wheel
not fixed firm on its axis." Scl. AM., Apr. 9, 1846, at 1.
4Miscellaneous Intelligence, S. AGRICULTURIST & REGISTRAR RURAL AFF., June
1835, at 332.
65
A Chapter on Game Fish, N.Y. TIMES, July 7, 1886, at 5.
66Sea and River Fishing: Chicago Fly-Casting Club Open Tournament, FOREST &
STREAM, Aug. 25, 1900, at 149; see Anglers' Club Casting Contest, FOREST & STREAM, Dec.
8, 1906, at 908 ("Charles Stepath's practice had been so good that he was regarded as dan-
gerous, but a backlash in his seventh cast ruined his chances.").
67FOREST & STREAM, Apr. 1919, at 181.
61FOREST & STREAM, June 30, 1930, at 446; see N.Y. TIMES, May 12, 1954, at 39 (ad-
vertising reel with "[a]nti-backlash patented brake").
69Libel Suit Backlashes, N.Y. TIMES, July 24, 1952, at 30. The meaning in this context
appears to be approximately "boomerang." At about this time Englishman James Raisin
published a "hard boiled novel" entitled Backlash. Marquis W. Childs, Speed Demon, N.Y.
TIMES, Feb. 13, 1949, at BR30. An American movie about revenge set in the West, entitled
Backlash, was directed by John Sturges. The Screen, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 21, 1956, at 11. A
play entitled Backlash, about "a revengeful man," was proposed for Broadway. Sam Zolotow,
Kern To Do Score for 'Annie Oakley,'N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 14, 1945, at 20.
70Joseph A. Loftus, President Confers on Coal Stalemate with Top Advisers, N.Y. TIMES,
May 7, 1946, at 1.
71Id.
72Arthur Krock, In the Nation, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 25, 1949, at 22.
71Edward A. Stephenson, Backlash, 40 AM. SPEECH 156, 156-57 (1965).
74
Harold C. Fleming, A Southern View of the South, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 3, 1960, at SM23.

2007] Roe Rage
white 'backlash' in the North," as evidenced particularly in George Wal-

lace's strong showing in the presidential primaries of 1964." 5 Backlash
came to designate counterforces unleashed by threatening changes in the
status quo. Social scientists began to refer to what Seymour Martin Lipset
and Earl Raab labeled "backlash politics," which "may be defined as the
reaction by groups which are declining in a felt sense of importance, influ-
76
ence, and power, as a result of secular endemic change in the society."
The women's movement, for example, sparked a "backlash" among those
who felt threatened by women's evolving role in the workplace and by
their pursuit of an equal rights amendment."
Legal scholars who now discuss the "Backlash Thesis" in connection
with Brown v. Board of Education,78 or who now lament "the disastrous
backlash that occurred in the wake of Roe v. Wade,' 79 use the term "back-
lash" to focus on questions of judicial role and judicial authority. These
contemporary accounts of resistance to Brown or to Roe often implicitly
adopt the perspective of courts, worrying that judicial decisions have
unleashed "the kind of backlash that undermines both the Court and its
holdings."8 Democratic constitutionalism resists this narrow judicial per-
spective on backlash.
Democratic constitutionalism conceptualizes the phenomenon of back-
lash not merely from the perspective of courts, but also from the point of
view of the American constitutional order as a whole. It situates backlash
within the dense network of communicative exchange that sustains the
democratic legitimacy of the Constitution. Americans believe that consti-
tutional meaning should be embodied in legally enforceable ways and
that constitutional meaning should be potentially responsive to their own
views. Citizens engaged in backlash press government officials to enforce
what those citizens believe to be the correct understanding of the Consti-
15Michael Rogin, Wallace and the Middle Class: White Backlash in Wisconsin, 30 PUB.
OPINION Q., 98, 98-106 & n.12 (1966); The Nation: Eyes on Goldwater, N.Y. TIMES, May
10, 1964, at E2; see also John Herbers, Critical Test for the Nonviolent Way, N.Y. TIMES,
July 5, 1964, at SM 5 (referring to the "white backlash stirred up by Gov. George Wallace
of Alabama in three Northern Presidential primaries"); E. W. Kenworthy, Civil Rights:
Politics, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 26, 1964, at E6 ("The white back-lash is more amorphous, less
organized, but plainly discernible from ... the vote amassed by Gov. George C. Wallace of
Alabama in the Wisconsin Presidential primary."); Fletcher Knebel, LOOK, Sept. 22, 1964,
at 36 ("Transferred to the world of politics, the white backlash aptly describes the resent-
ment of many white Americans to the speed of the great Negro revolution, which has been
gathering momentum since the first rash of sit-ins in early 1960.").
76
SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET & EARL RAAB, THE POLITICS OF UNREASON: RIGHT-
WING EXTREMISM IN AMERICA, 1790-1970, at 29 (1970); see also Kenneth L. Karst, Jus-
tice O'Connor
77
and the Substance of Equal Citizenship, 55 SuP. CT. REv. 357, 377 (2003).
SUSAN FALUDI, BACKLASH: THE UNDECLARED WAR AGAINST AMERICAN WOMEN
230-31 (1991).
78See, e.g., Michael J. Klarman, How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash
Thesis, 81 J. AM. HIST. 81 (1994).
79Neal Devins, I Love You, Big Brother, 87 CAL. L. REV. 1283, 1297 (1999).
10Laura Krugman Ray, Justice Ginsburg and the Middle Way, 68 BROOK. L. REV. 629,
636 (2003).

tution. They press these demands so that officials will interpret the Con-
stitution in ways that are democratically accountable.
Accounts of backlash now dominant in the legal academy do not ana-
lyze constitutional conflict from this perspective. They are instead juricen-
tric, viewing backlash as an impediment to judicial efforts to endow con-
stitutional ideals with legal form. In this part of our Essay, we examine
the shortcomings of this approach. We analyze the views of three promi-
nent scholars-Michael Klarman, William Eskridge, and Cass Sunstein-
who do not typically write from a juricentric standpoint, yet who view back-
lash primarily in terms of the threat it poses to judicial authority and so-
cial solidarity.
Klarman is a historian whose work has significantly contributed to
the recent interest in backlash." Although Klarman does not purport to in-
struct courts how to decide cases, he suggests that adjudication has unique
capacity to precipitate opposition, and he intimates that backlash is a sign
that courts have failed properly to execute their judicial role. Eskridge and
Sunstein have each developed a normative constitutional theory advising
courts to decide cases in a manner that avoids certain forms of constitu-
tional conflict. Eskridge warns against judicial review that raises the stakes
of politics in ways that may drive persons out of the political process. Sun-
stein advances a comprehensive and influential theory-"minimalism"-
that advises courts to decide cases so as to avoid contentious value choices.
Democratic constitutionalism suggests that some degree of conflict
may be an inevitable consequence of vindicating constitutional rights,
whether rights are secured by legislation or by adjudication. Constitutional
decisions sometimes provoke resistance, especially if they threaten the
status of groups that are accustomed to exercising authority and that be-
lieve resistance may avert threatened constitutional change. Where con-
troversy is unavoidable, enforcement of a right may
82
nevertheless be justified
if the values at stake are sufficiently important.
Democratic constitutionalism suggests, moreover, that controversy
provoked by judicial decisionmaking might even have positive benefits
for the American constitutional order. Citizens who oppose court decisions
are politically active. They enact their commitment to the importance of
constitutional meaning. They seek to persuade other Americans to embrace
their constitutional understandings. These forms of engagement lead citi-
zens to identify with the Constitution and with one another. Popular de-
bate about the Constitution infuses the memories and principles of our con-
stitutional tradition with meanings that command popular allegiance and
S1 See, e.g., Klarman, supra note 78; see also Friedman, The Importanceof Being Posi-
tive, supra note 34, at 1292; Frederick Schauer, Foreword: The Court's Agenda-and the
Nation's, 120 HARV. L. REV. 4, 39 n.133 (2006). An important early influence was cer-
tainly GERALD N. ROSENBERG, THE HOLLOW HOPE: CAN COURTS BRING ABOUT SOCIAL
CHANGE? (1991).
82See, e.g., Post, supra note 12, at 110.

2007] Roe Rage
that would never develop if a normatively estranged citizenry were passively

to submit to judicial judgments.
Constitutional theorists of backlash who reason in a juricentric frame-
work have generally been incurious about how commitment to our con-
stitutional order is produced, and so they have tended to ignore or under-
value the forms of political engagement that create democratically legitimate
constitutional meaning. A theorist who assumes that citizens identify with
the Constitution and who never examines the understandings and prac-
tices that sustain this identification is likely to view backlash simply as a
harm to be avoided. For these and other reasons, the model of democratic
constitutionalism suggests that Klarman, Eskridge, and Sunstein may sys-
tematically overestimate the costs of backlash and underestimate its bene-
fits.
A. Michael Klarman
Klarman has advanced an interpretation of Brown that holds that al-

though Brown neither dismantled segregation nor inspired the civil rights
movement, it nevertheless inspired "a massive backlash against racial
change"83 that was so vicious that it "in turn created a Northern backlash
that contributed significantly to racial change."84 Klarman believes that this
effect is not unique to Brown, for "many landmark Court rulings seem to
have generated backlashes rather than support."85 "Supreme Court rulings
often produce unpredictable backlash effects."86 Klarman also believes, how-
ever, that the Court broadly reflects society, so that its chief tendency is
"to constitutionalize consensus and suppress outliers."87 The Court "rarely, if
83Michael J. Klarman, Brown, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement, 80 VA.
L. REV. 7, 115 n.494 (1994).
14 Michael J. Klarman, Civil Rights Law: Who Made It and How Much Did It Matter?,
83 GEO. L.J. 433, 433 n.4 (1994). Klarman offers "The Brown Backlash Thesis":
Brown was indirectly responsible for the landmark civil rights legislation of the
mid-1960s by catalyzing southern resistance to racial change. Brown propelled
southern politics far to the right, as race was exalted over all other issues. In this
political environment, men were elected to all levels of public office who were,
both by personal predisposition and political calculation, prepared to use virtually
any means of resisting racial change, including blatant defiance of federal author-
ity and brutal suppression of civil rights demonstrations. The predictable conse-
quence was a series of violent confrontations between white supremacist law en-
forcement officials and generally nonviolent demonstrators, which provoked an
outcry from national television audiences, leading Congress and the President to
intervene with landmark civil rights legislation.
Klarman,
85
supra note 83, at 85.
MICHAEL J. KLARMAN, FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS: THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE STRUGGLE FOR RACIAL EQUALITY 464 (2004).
86Michael J. Klarman, How Great Were the "Great" Marshall Court Decisions?, 87
VA. L. REV. 1111, 1182 (2001) (emphasis added).
87 KLARMAN, supra note 85, at 453; see also Michael J. Klarman, What's So Great

ever, plays" the "adventurous role" of supporting "the vanguard of a so-

cial reform movement." 8 "The justices reflect dominant public opinion
too much for them to protect truly oppressed groups.""
Klarman must explain how such unadventurous courts can inspire such
furious backlash. Klarman's explanation is significant:
Court rulings such as Brown and Goodridge produce political

backlashes for three principal reasons: They raise the salience of
an issue, they incite anger over "outside interference" or "judicial
activism," and they alter the order in which social change would
otherwise have occurred. 90
Of the three principal reasons he advances for backlash, Klarman identi-

fies as "perhaps most important" that "court decisions produce back-
lashes by commanding that social reform take place in a different order
than might otherwise have occurred."'" The claim is comparative. Klarman
seems to be suggesting that politically responsive institutions, like legis-
latures and executives, will ordinarily not choose to make the same back-
lash-producing decisions as courts.92 He assumes that democratic politics
About Constitutionalismrn, 93 Nw. U.L. REv. 145, 172 (1998).

88Michael J. Klarman, Brown and Lawrence (and Goodridge), 104 MICH. L. REV. 431,
445 (2005).
89KLARMAN, supra note 85, at 449.
90Klarman, supra note 88, at 473.
91Id. at 477; see also KLARMAN, supra note 85, at 465 ("Court decisions can disrupt
the order in which social change might otherwise have occurred by dictating reform in
areas where public opinion is not yet ready to accept it."). There are serious conceptual
difficulties associated with the first two reasons articulated by Klarman. To say that the
Court provokes backlash because it represents "outside interference" might be relevant in a
case like Brown, in which Northern values were imposed upon Southern schools, but the
idea cannot be generalized to decisions like Roe or Lawrence, which do not reflect the
same degree of regional salience. To say that backlash is caused by antagonism to "judicial
activism" is to imply that judicial decisions are inherently more likely to create backlash
than legislative decisions. Klarman makes no serious effort to argue that there would be
less backlash if Congress, rather than courts, were to have ended school desegregation or
abolished the crime of sodomy, and the common sense of the matter is surely to the con-
trary. The same might be said about Klarman's point concerning salience. It seems true enough
to assert, as Klarman does, that "Court rulings such as Lawrence and Goodridge forced
people who previously had not paid much attention to gay-rights issues to notice what has
been happening and to form an opinion on it." Klarman, supra note 88, at 474. But surely
federal legislation recognizing same-sex marriage would also force persons to take notice
of the issue, and it is not clear that a judicial opinion would generate more salience than
would congressional legislation.
92Thus Klarman explains that in the Jim Crow South "white southerners were more
adamant about preserving grade-school segregation" than they were about resisting inte-
gration "in public transportation, police-department employment, athletic competitions,
and voter registration." Klarman, supra note 88, at 477. "Blacks, conversely, were often
more interested in voting, ending police brutality, securing decent jobs, and receiving a fair
share of public education funds than in desegregating grade schools." Id. There was there-
fore "space for political negotiation" that Brown made "untenable by forcing to the fore-
front an issue-racial segregation of public schools-on which most white southerners were
unwilling to compromise. Brown thus virtually ensured a backlash among southern whites."

2007] Roe Rage
ordinarily transpires in a space of "negotiation"93 that naturally functions

to avoid decisions that provoke massive resistance. Thus, it might be hy-
pothesized that democratically responsible institutions, like Congress and
state legislatures, would not have desegregated schools until the political
costs of doing so were acceptable, which is to say until the possibility of
creating backlash had diminished. Courts, by contrast, "often" '94 produce
backlash because they respond to "the agendas set by litigants" rather than
to "political negotiation."95
The normative implications for adjudication of Klarman's backlash
thesis are deeply ambiguous. In the context of Brown, we might take Klar-
man's description of backlash to imply that school desegregation, whether
ordered by a court or by a legislature, ought to have been postponed
indefinitely, or at least until desegregation could have been accomplished
without backlash. 96 Or we might take his positive description to suggest that
because desegregation could have been peaceably accomplished through
politics and legislation, the Court should not have acted to muddy the waters
and provoke massive resistance.
On the former interpretation, Klarman's thesis would amount to a
general caution against the enforcement of constitutional rights whenever
such enforcement would produce serious controversy. Backlash avoidance
on this account would entrench the existing distribution of rights. We
shall not address this interpretation, except to observe that we find its exces-
sive quietism incompatible with a commitment to enforce constitutional
rights. We instead focus on the second possible interpretation of Klarman,
who could be read as arguing that courts should only cautiously enforce
constitutional rights because their efforts will interfere with the realization
of constitutional values that might be achieved without conflict through leg-
islation.
The idea that constitutional values can be more harmoniously real-
ized through legislation than through adjudication is one that underlies
much contemporary fear of backlash. It seems to rest on a seriously roman-
ticized view of democratic politics. We know, for example, that "'back-
lash' politics by declining groups" is "a recurrent phenomenon in Ameri-
can politics." 97 Legislation that intervenes in entrenched status relations
Id. at 477-78.
93See supra note 92.
94Klarman, supra note 86, at 1182.
95KLARMAN, supra note 85, at 465.
96We appreciate that Klarman himself would probably not draw this normative impli-
cation from his own history, because he believes that Brown ultimately produced such
violent Southern resistance that it provoked a Northern backlash committing the nation to
the path of desegregation. From Klarman's perspective, therefore, Brown ultimately (if indi-
rectly) produced a socially desirable outcome. But of course this result could not be known
ex ante, so that at the time of Brown it could not be foreseen that predictable Southern resis-
tance would produce a contingent Northern backlash. Ex ante, therefore, the normative impli-
cations of Klarman's analysis are not obvious.
97See Seymour Martin Lipset, Beyond the Backlash, 23 ENCOUNTER, Nov. 1964, at 11.

s
often generates countermobilization and hence serious controversy. 99
The very word "backlash" acquired political salience in the context of an-
tagonism generated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'00 State ratifications
of the ERA also generated a powerful backlash,' ' and legislation liberal-
izing access to abortion sparked "significant countermobilization" in the
02
period immediately before Roe was decided.1
Klarman might concede that legislation causes backlash and neverthe-
less argue that rights should be enforced by the popular branches of gov-
ernment, rather than by courts, because adjudication is ineffectual and
precipitates costly constitutional controversy without commensurate bene-
fit. 103 At moments Klarman seems to imply that adjudication cannot alter
social practices and beliefs." The implication echoes the thesis advanced
by Gerald Rosenberg in 1991 that "courts can seldom produce significant
10 5
social reform," although they can "mobilize opponents."'
The premise that adjudication is relatively unable to affect the con-
tent of social ideals and behavior is shared by some on the left. 10 6 But this
premise contradicts much recent "sociolegal" scholarship, which "sees legal
discourse, categories, and procedures as a framework through which indi-
viduals in society come to apprehend reality."'' 0 7 In Austin Sarat's influential
" See, e.g., Clarence Y.1H. Lo, Countermovements and ConservativeMovements in the
Contemporary U.S., 8 ANN. REV. SOC. 107 (1982); David S. Meyer & Suzanne Staggenbord,
Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity, 101 AM. J.
Soc. 1628 (1996).
99See generally Scott Lemieux, ConstitutionalPolitics and the Political Impact of Femi-
nist Litigation: Legal Challenges to Abortion Law in Comparative Perspective, at 227-28
(2004) (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington).
100Stephenson, supra note 73, at 156.
101See FALUDI, supra note 77; Siegel, supra note 12.
102See Lemieux, supra note 99 at 227-28; infra note 192 and accompanying text.
103We should note that on this interpretation Klarman's account would repudiate the
fundamental premise of much post-New Deal liberal legal scholarship that the fundamental
function of constitutional law is to repair defects in the political process. See, e.g., JOHN
HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (1980). It is ordi-
narily thought that constitutional law should intervene if political outcomes are unfair
because of prejudice against "discrete and insular minorities." On this interpretation of
Klarman, by contrast, courts should not seek to correct the dynamics of the political proc-
ess. The role of courts would instead seem to be that of suppressing outliers and consoli-
dating conclusions reached through the political process.
104The legitimacy of the Court, according to Klarman, "flows less from the soundness
of its legal reasoning than from its ability to predict future trends in public opinion." Klar-
man, supra note 88, at 488.
105ROSENBERG, supra note 81, at 341.
106See, e.g., STUART A. SCHEINGOLD, THE POLITICS OF RIGHTS: LAWYERS, PUBLIC
POLICY, AND POLITICAL CHANGE 218-19 (Univ. Mich. Press, 2d ed. 2004) (1974); Gerald
N. Rosenberg, Courting Disaster: Looking for Change in All the Wrong Places, 54 DRAKE
L. REV. 795, 813-15 (2006) ("To rely on litigation rather than political mobilization, as
difficult as it may be, misunderstands both the limits of courts and the lessons of history. It
substitutes symbols for substance and clouds our vision with a naive and romantic belief in
the triumph of rights over politics.").
107 Paul Schiff Berman, The Cultural Life of Capital Punishment: Surveying the
Benefits of a Cultural Analysis of Law, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 1129, 1140 (2002) (essay
review).

2007] Roe Rage
formulation, "law shapes society from the inside out by providing the
principal categories in terms of which social life is made to seem largely
natural, normal, cohesive and coherent."' 8 This "constitutive vision of
law"'' 9 suggests that adjudicative constitutional law can generate both posi-
tive commitment and negative antagonism."10
Democratic constitutionalism rests on the commonsense idea that
judge-made constitutional law and democratic politics affect each other.
There are good reasons why Americans have struggled for generations to
embody their view of the Constitution within judicially enforced consti-
tutional law. Democratic constitutionalism affirms that these struggles have
not been for nothing. There is no theoretically cogent reason to regard
adjudication as a social practice that is uniquely incapable of affecting
social values. Constitutional meaning, in court-made constitutional law
and in many other forms, influences and is influenced by general social
beliefs and commitments.
The practical consequences of legal decisions enforcing constitutional
values can be seen in Bill Eskridge's detailed examination of gay rights.
Eskridge concludes that "public attitudes can be influenced by changes in
the law." ' ' Eskridge praises the "relative success""' 2 of the Vermont Su-
preme Court's decision in Baker v. State,'" which both recognized the rights
of same-sex couples and required the state to provide same-sex couples
civil unions rather than equal access to the institution of marriage. Eskridge
recounts how the Baker decision enabled "the values of tolerance and
mutual respect" to find expression in an otherwise stalemated political proc-
4
ess.''
Were adjudication irrelevant to the formation of constitutional ideals, it
would make sense for courts systematically to avoid the destructive ef-
fects of backlash. But because court decisions do affect constitutional val-
ues, backlash may be a necessary consequence of vindicating constitutional
rights.
108Austin D. Sarat, Redirecting Legal Scholarship in Law Schools, 12 YALE J.L. &
HUMAN. 129, 134 (2000) (book review).
109Berman, supra note 107, at 1140.
is Of course it might be the case that in any particular decision, as for example in
Brown, adjudication failed to produce these positive effects.

i William N. Eskridge, Jr., Equality Practice: Liberal Reflections on the Jurispru-
dence of Civil Unions, 64 ALB. L. REV. 853, 877 (2001) [hereinafter Eskridge, Equality Prac-
tice]. "While a court's options are limited by social norms, judges also can influence the
evolution of those norms." William N. Eskridge, Jr., No Promo Homo: The Sedimentation
of Anti-Gay Discourse and the Channeling Effect of Judicial Review, 75 N.Y.U. L. REV.
1327, 1405 (2000) [hereinafter Eskridge, No Promo Homo].
112William N. Eskridge, Jr., Pluralism and Distrust: How Courts Can Support Democ-
racy by Lowering the Stakes of Politics, 114 YALE L.J. 1279, 1326 (2005).
113744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).
14 Eskridge, Equality Practice,supra note 11, at 881. For a detailed empirical study
of that process, see WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., EQUALITY PRACTICE: CIVIL UNIONS AND
THE FUTURE OF GAY RIGHTS 55-82 (2002); Eskridge, No Promo Homo, supra note I 1, at
1405.

B. William Eskridge
Reasoning about backlash in his role as scholar and as advocate," 5

Eskridge offers a larger "pluralism-facilitating theory" of the role of courts
in the American constitutional system." 6 He draws on the work of John
Hart Ely to develop a normative framework that would authorize courts to
act to preserve healthy democratic politics in a heterogeneous nation riven
by "the emergence, conflict, and triumph of normative identity-based social
movements.""'
Eskridge advises judges to issue judgments on the understanding that
"pluralist democracy is dynamic and fragile."" 8 A healthy pluralist democ-
racy "depends on the commitment of all politically relevant groups to its
processes. Political losers may exit the system unless they think their
interests will be accommodated or their losses from exiting will exceed
their gains."" 9 But a pluralist democracy also "needs emerging groups to
commit to its processes just as much as it needs established groups to
stick to those processes."'' 0
These two prerequisites imply that courts must
"IEskridge generally conceptualizes backlash as a possible effect of a judicial deci-

sion that must be considered like any other relevant effect. Sometimes judges should avoid
backlash, while at other times they may need to issue rulings that provoke backlash. For
example, Eskridge argues that "equality practice that moves too swiftly, as same-sex mar-
riage apparently did in Hawaii and Alaska, may yield a counterproductive backlash."
Eskridge, Equality Practice, supra note 111, at 878. But he also believes that a court deci-
sion "that moves too slowly risks entrenching a grating inequality." Id. Judges know that if
"they protect [a] minority group too little, they risk their own personal and institutional
legitimacy if the minority becomes an accepted part of public culture. The Court did its
legitimacy no good in Dred Scott, Bradwell, and Hardwick." Eskridge, No Promo Homo,
supra note 111, at 1400. Eskridge thus affirms that judges establishing contested constitu-
tional meanings may properly incur backlash. See, e.g., ESKRIDGE, supra note 114, at 80;
Eskridge, No Promo Homo, supra note 111, at 1394 n.281 (conceding that Baker produced
"a popular backlash").
" 6 Eskridge, supra note 112, at 1301.
"' Id. at 1296. Eskridge's ambition to construct judicial norms for the preservation of
democratic politics could not be more antithetical to Klarman's essential premises. Com-
pare supra note 103.
11SEskridge, supra note 112, at 1294.
19Id. Eskridge observes:
Groups will disengage when they believe that participation in the system is point-
less due to their permanent defeat on issues important to them or their perception
that the process is stacked against them, or when the political process imposes
fundamental burdens on them or threatens their group identity or cohesion.
Id. at201293.
1 Id. at 1294. Eskridge writes:
[T]here are positive reasons to encourage all groups-new and old-to work within
the democratic system. Any government depends on the cooperation of citizens in
the ordinary affairs of governance. Pluralist democracy potentially engages most
citizens in the affairs of governance, and that engagement encourages cooperation
across the board. If a lot of Americans drop out of or never drop into our system,
it will lose much of that democracy bonus.

2007] Roe Rage
avoid decisions that cause established groups to exit from politics, and
they must also avoid decisions upholding oppressive legislation that pre-
vents emerging groups from becoming politically engaged.
Eskridge thus argues that courts should avoid rulings like Roe v. Wade'2'
and Bowers v. Hardwick.' Eskridge condemns Roe because it recognized
a right that caused traditional Americans who oppose abortion to feel "as
though they had been disowned by this country": 23
Roe essentially declared a winner in one of the most difficult and

divisive public law debates of American history. Don't bother go-
ing to state legislatures to reverse that decision. Don't bother trying
to persuade your neighbors (unless your neighbor is Justice Pow-
ell). Roe was a threat to our democracy because it raised the stakes
of an issue where primordial loyalties ran deep. Not only did
Roe energize the pro-life movement and accelerate the infusion
of sectarian religion into American politics, but it also radical-
24
ized many traditionalists. 1
Eskridge condemns Hardwick because it failed to strike down a Georgia

consensual sodomy law that symbolically stood for the proposition that
"people who engage in 'homosexual sodomy' can be considered
an out-
law class of citizens."' 125 Hardwick "generated a firestorm of protest" be-
cause "it seemed like a declaration of war by the state against 'homosexu-
als."' 1 26 It "was a judicial blunder in the same way as Roe."'127 If Roe forced
traditionalists to exit from American politics, Hardwick prevented gays
from entering it.
Eskridge's "pluralism reinforcing" theory is thus about when courts
should and should not provoke backlash. His theory turns on an interpre-
tation of the health of the American constitutional system. Eskridge as-
serts that decisions that drive groups out of politics, whether by upholding
oppressive legislation or by constitutionalizing contentious issues, harm
pluralist democracy. To assess this assertion, one would need to know pre-
cisely what it means to estrange groups from politics. Eskridge's analysis
of this crucial point seems to be conceptualized almost entirely within a
Relatedly, the engagement of diverse groups enriches democratic discourse.

When advocates must articulate and defend their proposals to a variety of per-
spectives and not just to their core supporters, they are more likely to moderate
and universalize those proposals.
Id. at 1294-95.
121410 U.S. 113 (1973).
22478 U.S. 186 (1986).
123Eskridge, supra note 112, at 1312.
124Id.
2
15 Id. at 1314.
126 Id.
127 Id.

juricentric perspective that he otherwise rejects in his scholarship and

advocacy.
It would surely harm democracy to prohibit groups from participat-
ing in politics; that is why political speech and association are constitu-
tionally protected. But neither Roe nor Hardwick prevented political par-
ticipation. To the contrary, each decision provoked opponents to enter the
political arena. Roe inspired a political campaign to prohibit abortion that
changed the shape of both constitutional politics and constitutional law.' 28
Advocates of gay rights were likewise active and successful in the years
after Hardwick, as Eskridge well appreciates.2 9 By any ordinary descrip-
tive measure, Roe and Hardwick seem to have increased political en-
gagement rather than diminished it.
How, then, might Eskridge claim that these decisions forced groups
out of politics? Eskridge reasons from a conventional complaint about
Roe, which condemns the decision as the Court's creation of "a funda-
mental right at the expense of democratic deliberation."' 30 To rely on this
characterization is to mistake a political critique of the decision for a de-
scription of its actual impact. The force of the claim that Roe shut down
politics draws on juricentric conventions that are so powerful that they ob-
scure the obvious fact that abortion has become one of the nation's most
explosive political questions. The resulting confusion is visible in Scalia's
Casey dissent, which scores Roe for having "fanned into life an issue that
has inflamed our national politics" and yet which simultaneously con-
demns Roe for 13"foreclosing
1
all democratic outlet for the deep passions this
issue arouses."'
Roe did restrict the ambit of potential legislation, limiting majori-
tarian decisionmaking in the way courts do whenever they vindicate any
128 See infra Part III. It is true, as Eskridge has observed, that "[slome pro-life Ameri-
cans ... abandoned state processes and mounted campaigns of private economic warfare
or even violence against abortion providers." Eskridge, supra note 112, at 1300. But this
can no more be regarded as a general exodus from politics than can the violence that ac-
companied resistance to Brown. Cf Siegel, supra note 12, at 1356 (observing the use of
"procedurally nonconforming, socially disruptive, and unlawful conduct that draws atten-
tion to [a] movement's claims").
129 See, e.g., Eskridge, No Promo Homo, supra note 11l. In the immediate aftermath of
Bowers, gay advocates remained in politics, adding direct action protest, most notably the
march on Washington, to ongoing legislative efforts. See Karlyn Barker, Rights March
Drawing Gays to Washington: Rally on the Mall To Follow Week of Lobbying and Protests,
WASH. POST, Oct. 9, 1987, at CI; Peter Freiberg, The March on Washington: Hundreds of
Thousands Take the Gay Cause to the Nation's Capital, ADVOC., Nov. 10, 1987, reprinted
in WITNESS TO REVOLUTION: THE ADVOCATE REPORTS ON GAY AND LESBIAN POLITICS,
1967-1999, at 205 (Chris Bull ed., 1999); see also Peter Freiberg et al., The New Gay Ac-
tivism: Adding Bite to the Movement, ADVOC., June 7, 1988, reprintedin WITNESS TO REVO-
LUTION, supra, at 226 (cataloguing emergence of high-profile, direct-action protest by gays
and lesbians to supplement traditional lobbying efforts).
110Jason A. Adkins, Note, Meet Me at the (West Coast) Hotel: The Lochner Era and
the Demise of Roe v. Wade, 90 MINN. L. REV. 500, 502 (2005).
131Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 995, 1002 (1992) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting).

2007] Roe Rage
constitutional right. Yet Roe surely did not foreclose all democratic outlet
for the deep passions aroused by the question of abortion. Scalia's claims
about Roe make sense only when they are seen as efforts to mobilize crit-
ics 'ofthe decision. 3 2 As Scalia well knows, the practical and expressive
power of judicial decisions does not shut down politics; it can instead
inspire Americans to struggle passionately to shape the exercise of judi-
cial review.'33 Judicial review limits, channels, and amplifies democratic
politics.'34 Democratic politics, in turn, shapes the institution of judicial
review.'35 The plain historical fact of the matter is well described by Barry
Friedman: "[A]fter all is said and done, if the fight is fought and pursued
with focus, and attracts enough adherents, the law changes. Roe becomes
36
Casey. Bowers becomes Romer and then Lawrence."'
Democratic constitutionalism invites us carefully to analyze how
groups actually engage in politics over constitutional questions of this
kind. As the example of federal late-term abortion legislation suggests,'37
there are numerous ways for those who dissent from a decision of the Court
to signal respect for the rule of law while nonetheless registering vigor-
ous disagreement with the Court's judgment. Such disagreement is fre-
quently expressed in legislation, which offers countless opportunities for
judicial critics to interpose practical obstacles to the realization of consti-
tutional norms advanced by a challenged decision.
Roe has accordingly been tested by innumerable statutes that probe its
reach and attack its normative underpinnings.' 38 Only four years after Roe,
the Court "explicitly acknowledged the State's strong interest in protect-
ing the potential life of the fetus" and ruled that it was not unconstitutional
132Efforts of this nature recur in Justice Scalia's dissents. See Post & Siegel, supra note
26, at 566-68.
"I Mobilization in support or criticism of a decision is a key form of democratic en-
gagement, even though these forms of collective deliberation do not assume the form of
lawmaking, or even find expression through an institution designed to adduce democratic
will:
Collective deliberation constructs many of the practical questions that institutions

of preference aggregation address; it infuses those practical questions with the
kinds of symbolic significance that cause members of a polity to care about their
disposition. It helps to forge the kinds of identity and attachment that would cause
a population to participate in majoritarian processes.
Siegel, supra note 12, at 1341.

'14See Robert Post & Reva Siegel, PopularConstitutionalism, Departmentalism, and
Judicial Supremacy, 92 CAL. L. REV. 1027, 1035-37 (2004).

135 See Jack M. Balkin, Respect-Worthy: Frank Michelman and the Legitimate Consti-
tution, 39 TULSA L. REv. 485, 505 (2004).

136 Friedman, The Importance of Being Positive, supra note 34, at 1293.
131See supra text accompanying notes 52-57.
'31See, e.g., Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747
(1986); City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416, 442-49 (1983);
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428
U.S. 52 (1976).

for state medicaid programs to exclude abortions even if the programs

fund childbirths. 3 9 Roe has inspired its opponents to "run the long race of
politics, keeping the issue salient for long enough to push it to a place on
the agenda where it influences not only the appointments process, but
also public thought, so that people take the bench prepared to see change
happen."' 40 These struggles have produced Casey and now Carhart.4
In contrast to Roe, Hardwick refused to articulate a constitutional
right. Those seeking to challenge Hardwick could not mobilize against a
particular opinion as Roe's critics had done. Supporters of gay rights none-
theless had to alter the common sense of sexual orientation, so that discrimi-
nation against gays, paradigmatically displayed in criminal sodomy statutes,
would no longer seem reasonable or acceptable. The gay rights community
successfully met this challenge. 42 Whereas in 1987, 55% of Americans
thought that homosexuality between consenting adults should not be le-
gal and 33% thought that it should be legal, by 2001 these numbers had
virtually switched: 54% of Americans thought that homosexual relations
should be legal and only 42% thought that they should be illegal. 43 The
common sense of sexual orientation had been importantly changed,'" a fact
139 Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 478 (1977); see Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991);
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Some Effects of Identity-Based Social Movements on Constitu-
tional Law in the Twentieth Century, 100 MICH. L. REV. 2062, 2144-53 (2002).
140Friedman, supra note 34, at 1294.
'"I See supra text accompanying notes 56-61; infra note 243. We resist the idea that
the Court simply decides cases in ways that reflect "popular opinion" or "popular consen-
sus." The meaning of cases is often too complex to be captured by opinion polls; courts
construct as well as reflect popular opinion; politics can be too contested to be captured by
any notion of consensus to which adjudication can correspond.
'42 See Adam Nagourney, Gay Politics and Anti-Politics:A Movement Divided Between
Push and Shove, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 25, 1998, at D3; Ben White, Gay and Lesbian Groups
Plan To Step Up Voter Turnout Campaigns, WASH. POST, Sept. 22, 2000 at A16.
143Public Agenda, Gay Rights: Bills and Proposals, http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/
major proposals-detail.cfm?issue-type=gayrights&list= 1 (last visited May 12, 2007).
14As Michael Klarman describes this history:
Lawrence, like Brown, came in the wake of extraordinary changes in attitudes and
practices regarding homosexuality. In 1986, Chief Justice Warren Burger in his
concurring opinion in Bowers recited Blackstone's condemnation of homosexual-
ity as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape. In the seventeen years between
Bowers and Lawrence, public opinion went from opposing the legalization of ho-
mosexual relations by fifty-five percent to thirty-three percent to supporting le-
galization by sixty percent to thirty-five percent. Many states, either through leg-
islative or judicial action, nullified laws criminalizing same-sex sodomy. Several
states and scores of cities added protection for sexual orientation to their antidis-
crimination laws. Nearly two hundred Fortune 500 companies extended job-related
benefits to gay partners, as did several states and scores of municipalities for their
public employees. The Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated a ban on same-sex mar-
riage, and the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must at least
be permitted to form "civil unions." In the 1990s, hundreds of openly gay men and
women were elected to public offices, and gays and lesbians entered mainstream
culture on television, film, and music; in 1998, an openly gay man won a Pulitzer
Prize for the first time. In 2003 the Episcopalian Church ordained its first openly
gay bishop.

20071 Roe Rage
that no doubt underlay the Court's eventual decision in 2003 to overrule

Hardwick.
The model of democratic constitutionalism allows us to appreciate
that the constitutional politics inspired by both Roe and Hardwick are the
bread and butter of the American constitutional system. Roe and Hardwick
can be condemned (or praised) as a matter of substantive constitutional
law, but we are not persuaded that there is an independent and neutral crite-
rion of healthy political pluralism on which it is possible to condemn them.
Eskridge's normative theory of judicial review would seem to derive in-
stead from a strong substantive vision of the kind of tolerance that ought
to sustain what John Hart Ely once called the "pluralist's bazaar."1 45 It can be
said of Eskridge's theory, as it was convincingly said of Ely, that "[t]he
representation-reinforcing enterprise is shot full of value choices," including
the "(covert) choices about who is justifiably the object of prejudice and
whether legislative goals are sufficiently important to warrant the burdens
146
they impose on some members of society."'
C. Cass Sunstein
In contrast to both Klarman and Eskridge, Sunstein does not focus a

great deal on the phenomenon of backlash. He knows, of course, that court
decisions "may produce an intense social backlash, in the process delegiti-
mating both the Court and the cause it favors."' 147 But this possibility is
only one of many reasons that Sunstein advances for the jurisprudence that
he has so forcefully articulated during the last decade, which he calls "mini-
malism 1 48 The "distinguishing feature" of minimalism is support for "nar-
row, incremental decisions, not broad rulings that the nation may later
have cause to regret."'' 49 Minimalist decisions are "narrow ratherthan wide,"
because "[t]hey decide the case at hand; they do not decide other cases
too unless they are forced to do so ..... "I And they are "shallow rather
than deep," because they "try to avoid issues of basic principle and in-
Both Brown and Lawrence reflected, at least as much as they produced, changes
in social attitudes and practices.
Klarman, supra note 88, at 443-44.

141ELY, supra note 103, at 152.
146Paul Brest, The Substance of Process, 42 OHIO ST. L.J. 131, 140 (1981).
14 Cass R. Sunstein, Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided, 110 HARV. L. REV. 4, 33
(1996).
48
1 CASS R. SUNSTEIN, ONE CASE AT A TIME: JUDICIAL MINIMALISM ON THE SUPREME
COURT
49
54 (1999).
1 CASS R. SUNSTEIN, RADICALS IN ROBES: WHY EXTREME RIGHT-WING COURTS ARE
WRONG FOR AMERICA Xiii (2005).
Sunstein, supra note 147, at 15.
1S0

stead attempt to reach incompletely theorized agreements."'' Sunstein

52
regards Roe as "a blunder insofar as it resolved so much so quickly."'
Minimalism has for Sunstein evolved into a full-fledged and free-stand-
ing account of the appropriate role of a judge in the American constitu-
tional system.'53 Sunstein's embrace of minimalism epitomizes progressives'
diminishing commitment to adjudication in American constitutionalism.'54
Although we have in other contexts been criticized for desiring "to take
the Constitution away from the courts,"'55 democratic constitutionalism
supports a far more robust account of constitutional adjudication than does
Sunstein's minimalism.
Sunstein offers five reasons to support minimalism.5 6 Minimalism re-
duces decision costs for courts trying to decide cases.' 57 It reduces the
error costs associated with mistaken judgments.' It reduces the difficulties
associated with "bounded rationality, including lack of knowledge of un-
anticipated adverse effects."' 59 It "helps a society to deal with reasonable
pluralism."'" And, "perhaps most important[ly]," minimalism "allows the
democratic process a great deal of room in which to adapt to coming de-
Id. at 20.
15'
52
1 1d. at 31.
113In his earlier writings, Sunstein had stressed that "it would be foolish to suggest...
that minimalism is generally a good strategy ....Everything depends on contextual con-
siderations." SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 50; see Sunstein, supra note 147, at 28, 30
("Minimalism is appropriate only in certain contexts. It is hardly a sensible approach for
all officials, or even all judges, all of the time ....The choice between minimalism and its
alternatives depends on an array of pragmatic considerations and on judgments about the
capacities of various institutional actors."). In his most recent book, however, Sunstein
categorizes minimalism as one of "the four approaches that have long dominated constitu-
tional debates." SUNSTEIN, supra note 149, at xi. The other three are fundamentalism,
which holds that "the Constitution must be interpreted according to the 'original under-
standing;' perfectionism, which holds that "the Constitution" should be interpreted to
make it "the best that it can be;" and majoritarianism, which holds that "courts should
defer to the judgments of elected representatives." Id. at xii-xiii. Because Sunstein asserts
that there are "but few supporters on the current federal courts" for perfectionism or ma-
joritarianism, he believes that "modern constitutional disputes ...are best understood in
terms of the division between fundamentalism and minimalism." Id. at xi, 30.
"I'Of course this is not true of all progressives. See, e.g., David J. Barron, What's
Wrong with Conservative Constitutionalism?Two Styles of Progressive ConstitutionalCritique
and the Choice they Present, 1 HARV. L. & POL'v REV. (Sept. 18, 2006), http://www.
hlpronline.com/2006/07/barron_01 .html; William P. Marshall, The Empty Promise of Com-
passionate Conservatism: A Reply to Judge Wilkinson, 90 VA. L. REV. 355 (2004).
155Saikrishna Prakash & John Yoo, Against Interpretive Supremacy, 103 MICH. L.
REV. 1539, 1564 (2005); see Barron, supra note 154; Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Democ-
ratic Constitutionalism:A Reply to Professor Barron, 1 HARv. L. & POL'Y REV. (Sept. 18,
2006), http://www.hlpronline.com/2006/08/post-siegel0 l.html.
156SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 53-54.
57
58 Id.at 47.
1 1d. at 49.
119 Id. at 53. It is under this rubric that Sunstein explicitly places the question of back-
lash, which is the possibility "that a judicial ruling could face intense political opposition
in a way that would be counterproductive to the very moral and political claims that it is
being asked to endorse." Id. at 54; see SUNSTEIN, supra note 149, at 100-01.
'60SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 51.

2007] Roe Rage
velopments, to produce mutually advantageous compromises, and to add

' 6
new information and perspectives to legal issues."' 1
The first three of these reasons advance pragmatic considerations that
are more or less cogent depending on the circumstances of particular cases.
They involve trade-offs about which little can be said in the abstract. But
the final two reasons articulate more systemic justifications for minimal-
ism. We have already discussed the last of these justifications, democ-
racy, in our consideration of Eskridge. Sunstein believes that minimalism
promotes "democratic accountability and democratic deliberation" and in
this way "is self-consciously connected with the liberal principle of le-
gitimacy."'' 62 But Sunstein, like Eskridge, tends to adopt the juricentric view
that judicial decisionmaking is incompatible with democratic engage-
ment. He writes that for a court to protect a constitutional right is to "rule
some practices off-limits to politics.' 1 63 Sunstein, no less than Eskridge, is in
the grip of an image of constitutional law as "democracy-foreclosing."'"
Democratic constitutionalism refuses to accept this image, and it
thus provides a more nuanced appreciation of the actual operation of our
constitutional system. No court, including the Supreme Court, has the capac-
ity to rule a controversial issue "off-limits to politics."'65 As Jon Stewart
ironically reports in his discussion of Roe, "[t]he Court rules that the
right to privacy protects a woman's decision to have an abortion and the
fetus is not a person with constitutional rights, thus ending all debate on
this once-controversial issue.' 16 6 Of course constitutionalization of a right
alters the nature of democratic politics. It focuses debate on judicial opin-
ions; it eliminates particular legislative outcomes; it injects constitutional
principles into debate; it may, to use the language of both Eskridge and
Friedman, "raise the stakes of politics."'67
61Id. at 53.
Sunstein, supra note 147, at 7-8.
162
163SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 26.
'64 Id. at 26. "The advantage of minimalism over perfectionism should now be clear.
Minimalists respect democratic prerogatives." SUNSTEIN, supra note 149, at 103; cf id. at
104: "Roe ... has long dominated debates over the future direction of the Supreme Court.
In every recent presidential election, the question, What will be the future of the Supreme
Court? is often taken, by liberals and conservatives alike, to be code for, What will happen
to the right to choose abortion ?"
165Waldron, supra note 3, at 1369.
'66JON STEWART ET AL., AMERICA (THE BOOK): A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO DEMOCRACY
INACTION 90 (2004); cf John F. Basiak, Jr., Dangerous Predictions: Referencing "Emerg-
ing" History and Tradition in Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence in an Era of Blue
State Federalism, 15 WIDENER L.J. 135, 155 (2005) ("As a result of Roe, the United States
Supreme Court removed the issue of abortion from the public debate and placed it into the
nearly untouchable sphere of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.").
167 Eskridge, supra note 112, at 1310 ("Judicial review can raise the stakes of politics
by taking issues away from the political system prematurely; by frustrating a group's abil-
ity to organize, bond, and express the values of its members; or by demonizing an out-
group."); Friedman, The Importance of Being Positive, supra note 34, at 1294 (constitu-
tional decisionmaking "raises the stakes of the debate, and intensifies it").

Even so, it is a mistake to imagine the relationship between constitu-

tional adjudication and democracy as a zero-sum game in which the aug-
mentation of one necessarily entails the diminishment of the other. Although
constitutionalizing a right takes certain legislative outcomes off the table,
it can also invigorate and transform politics.' 68 Whether and how a court
should constitutionalize a right is a contextual judgment that must be evalu-
ated at the level of discrete rights and individual cases. Certain rights, for
example those of freedom of speech and association, may be required by
democracy itself. 69 Other rights impose limits on democratic politics in
the name of fundamental constitutional ideals; they prohibit torture or
repudiate practices that perpetuate unjust status relations.
Judges vindicating constitutional rights should of course consider the
effect of their decisions on democratic politics. This is what judges do in
the ordinary exercise of their professional legal reason. Courts routinely de-
termine, for example, whether constitutional values are sufficiently im-
portant to justify strict judicial scrutiny of their potential infringement, or
whether constitutional values are sufficiently attenuated that courts should
examine their potential violation using only rational basis review. A the-
ory of the proper relationship between adjudication and democratic poli-
tics necessarily lies coiled at the core of every judicially defined and en-
forced constitutional right. (Sunstein describes how judges of different
interpretive philosophies will approach this problem in his excellent con-
tribution to this volume.) 7
The assumption that avoiding conflict is necessary for social solidar-
ity is visible in the fifth justification advanced by Sunstein to support
minimalism, which counsels interpreting the Constitution in ways that
accommodate a "reasonable pluralism." In "heterogeneous society," Sun-
stein notes, "reasonable people disagree on a large number of topics." 7 '
Because constitutional law applies to an entire heterogeneous population,' 72
Sunstein believes courts should "try to economize on moral disagreement
by refusing to challenge other people's deeply held moral commitments
when it is not necessary for them to do so."' 73 Courts ought to embrace "in-
completely theorized agreements" so that they can put "disagreements to
one side" and converge "on an outcome and a relatively modest rationale
on its behalf."'74 "By bracketing the largest disputes, a minimalist court
168 See, e.g., supra note 135 and accompanying text. See generally Part 1II.A infra.
169 Jurgen Habermas, On the Internal Relation Between the Rule of Law and Democ-
racy, in CONSTITUTIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY 267-72 (Richard Bellamy ed., 2006).
70
Cass R. Sunstein, Backlash's Travels, 42 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 435 (2007).
171 SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 50.
72Id. at 50.
173 Sunstein, supra note 147, at 8.
174Id. at 21. At times, Sunstein seems to back off the view that adjudication should un-
derstand the Constitution as an incompletely theorized agreement. There are points at
which Sunstein candidly acknowledges that "we follow the Constitution because it is good
for us to follow the Constitution." SUNSTEIN, supra note 149, at 75. Sunstein writes:

2007] Roe Rage
attempts to achieve a great goal of such a society: making agreement possi-

ble when agreement is necessary, and making agreement unnecessary when
agreement is impossible."'' 75 Sunstein argues that this approach is associ-
ated with two distinct social purposes: "promoting social stability and
176
...achieving a form of mutual respect."'
Minimalism approaches conflict with the assumption that it is a threat
to social cohesion and legitimacy. Democratic constitutionalism, by con-
trast, examines the understandings and practices that promote the social
cohesion and legitimacy of our constitutional order. It considers the pos-
sibility that controversy over constitutional meaning might promote cohe-
sion under conditions of normative hetereogeneity. Minimalism's treatment
of the Constitution as an "incompletely theorized agreement" may actu-
ally be counterproductive if it inhibits forms of engagement that contrib-
ute to the very "social stability" minimalism means to promote.
Democratic constitutionalism recognizes that Americans engaged in
dispute over the meaning of a shared tradition are joined by common un-
derstandings and practices. When citizens invoke the Constitution as a
basis for criticizing judicial decisions, they are expressing their estrange-
ment from government by identifying with the Constitution. To demon-
strate that the Constitution vindicates their ideals, they appeal to memories
and principles they share with others whom they hope to persuade. These
traditions of argument guide disputants to invoke the Constitution as a pow-
erful symbol of common American commitments. In these and other ways,
backlash can strengthen social cohesion and constitutional legitimacy in
a normatively heterogeneous nation like our own, which draws upon long-
standing practices of argument to struggle over the meaning of a shared
177
constitutional tradition.
[The Constitution] is legitimate because it provides an excellent framework for

democratic self-government and promotes other goals as well, including liberty and
also economic prosperity ....
[Sitability is only one value, and for good societies it is not the most impor-
tant one ....Since 1950 our constitutional system has not been entirely stable;
the document has been reinterpreted to ban racial segregation, to protect the right
to vote, to forbid sex discrimination, and to contain a robust principle of free speech.
Should we really have sought more stability?
Id. at 76. Unless we misinterpret Sunstein, this passage assumes that a basic justification
for constitutional law is to express fundamental social values. (This is what Sunstein calls
perfectionism. See supra note 153.) Sunstein invokes these values to distinguish desirable
from undesirable judicial decisions. Yet these values cannot be deduced from minimalism.
They must instead be determined by reference to the ideals that the Constitution is meant
to express. Courts that seek to attain only "incompletely theorized agreements" must system-
atically obscure the significance and guidance of these ideals. Sunstein, supra note 147, at
21.
176Id.
77See, e.g., Siegel, supra note 12, at 1418-19:

Minimalism does not consider this possibility. It views controversy

as a simple threat to social cohesion and recommends severing the con-
nection between constitutional adjudication and constitutional meaning in
order to avoid conflict. Miminalism would thus undercut the very practices
of deliberative engagement that democratic constitutionalism identifies as
potential sources of social stability.
If conflict over a shared tradition in fact supplies forms of social co-
hesion, then the most weighty justification for minimalism must be the sec-
ond goal articulated by Sunstein, which is the need to decide cases in such a
way as to maintain "mutual respect"'78 in a heterogeneous and plural pol-
ity. This is the topic to which we turn in the third and last part of this Es-
say.
III. DEMOCRACY AND DISAGREEMENT: ABORTION AND ROE RAGE
Constitutional scholarship that cautions judges to interpret the Con-

stitution so as to avoid controversy reflects a major shift in the tone of
legal scholarship, particularly on the left. No doubt this shift reflects a fear
of right-wing activism by new conservative appointees to the federal ju-
diciary. But it also expresses anxiety about the causes of contemporary
conservative dominance, which many attribute to the "intense" "popular
179
backlash against Roe."'
Progressives dread Roe rage. Consider Sunstein's account of Roe's "en-
during harmful effects on American life": 8
By 1973 ... state legislatures were moving firmly to expand le-

gal access to abortion, and it is likely that a broad guarantee of
access would have been available even without Roe .... [T]he
decision may well have created the Moral Majority, helped de-
Through most, but not all, of American history, constitutional contestation that chal-
lenges authoritative pronouncements of constitutional law has worked to vitalize
rather than undermine the system. This paradoxical result obtains because vigor-
ous challenges to pronouncements of law are generally conducted by means of a
complex code that preserves respect for legal authorities and rule of law values,
even as overlapping understandings of authority license dispute about constitu-
tional meaning ....
The practice of negotiating conflict about the terms of collective life by ref-
erence to a shared constitutional tradition creates community in the struggle over
the meaning of that tradition; it forges community under conditions of normative
dissensus.
178 SUNSTEIN, supra note 149, at 76.
179A. Jean Thomas, The Hard Edge of Kulturkampf." Cultural Violence, PoliticalBack-
lashes, and Judicial Resistance to Lawrence and Brown, 23 QUINNIPIAc L. REV. 707, 734-
35 (2004).
'80 Cass R. Sunstein, From Theory to Practice,29 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 389, 394-95 (1997).

2007] Roe Rage
feat the equal rights amendment, and undermined the women's

movement by spurring opposition and demobilizing potential ad-
herents. At the same time, Roe may have taken national policy
too abruptly to a point toward which it was groping more slowly,
and in the process may have prevented state legislatures from
working out longlasting solutions based upon broad public con-
sensus.181
Sunstein comes very close to holding Roe responsible for the sweeping
right-wing backlash that in recent years has devastated liberal principles
82
across wide swaths of public policy. He is not alone in this assessment.
Progressives interested in appeasing Roe rage seem less concerned about
Roe's reversal than about the prospect that backlash against Roe might
183
swell to engulf the entire liberal agenda.
Minimalism's emphasis on the need for judicial review to maintain a
"mutual respect" between groups who disagree in America's diverse pol-
Cass R. Sunstein, Three Civil Rights Fallacies,79 CAL. L. REV. 751, 766 (1991).
181
182See, e.g., Ken 1. Kersch, Justice Breyer's Mandarin Liberty, 73 U. CHI. L. REV. 759,
797-98 (2006) (reviewing STEPHEN BREYER, ACTIVE LIBERTY: INTERPRETING OUR DE-
MOCRATIC CONSTITUTION (2005)) ("Politically, the Court's decision to declare abortion to
be a national right served as a catalyst for the Right to Life movement. That movement, in
turn, played a major role in realigning the party loyalties of millions of Americans ....");
David Brooks, Roe's Birth, and Death, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 21, 2005, at A23 (explaining that
as a result of Roe, "[rieligious conservatives became alienated from their own government,
feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists"); Cynthia Gorney,
Imagine a Nation Without Roe v. Wade, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 27, 2005, 4, at 5 ("Indeed, Roe
created the national right-to-life movement, forging a powerful instant alliance among
what had been scores of scattered local opposition groups. What would happen to that
movement, should the galvanizing target of its loathing suddenly disappear?"); Jeffrey
Rosen, The Day After Roe, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, June 2006, at 56, 57 ("Critics of Roe v.
Wade often compare it to the Dred Scott decision on slavery before the Civil War. In both
cases, the Supreme Court overturned political compromises that national majorities sup-
ported, provoking dramatic political backlashes."); Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe,
ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Jan. 2005, at 48, 51 ("[Tlhe Court has not backed down on abortion.
Thus the pro-life sense of disenfranchisement has been irremediable-making it all the
more potent. One effect of Roe was to mobilize a permanent constituency for criminalizing
abortion-a constituency that has driven much of the southern realignment toward conser-
vatism.").
"83The views of Sanford Levinson seem representative:
[Mly concerns about Roe, and whether the Democratic Party should continue to
expend a great deal of political capital on keeping it on the books, have less to do
with specifically legal concerns-i.e., what constitutes the best interpretation of the
Constitution?-and far more to do with the politics of the abortion issue in 2005
and beyond. I am increasingly persuaded that the principal beneficiary of the cur-
rent struggle to maintain Roe is the Republican Party. Indeed, I have often referred to
Roe as "the gift that keeps on giving" inasmuch as it has served to send many
good, decent, committed largely (though certainly not exclusively) working-class
voters into the arms of a party that works systematically against their material inter-
ests but is willing to pander to their serious value commitment to a "right to life."
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin Debate, LEGAL AFF. DEBATE CLUB, Nov. 28, 2005,
http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub-ayotte I105.msp.

ity suggests that Roe rage might have been avoided if only courts had pre-
served a proper neutrality as between divergent perspectives. If courts had
only been suitably modest, so the argument might run, the rise of the New
Right might have been avoided. Although many find this argument com-
pelling, its force has been substantially undermined by new historical schol-
arship on antiabortion mobilization in the 1970s.1s4
Scholarship on antiabortion movements in the 1970s has come in
two waves. The first wave rejected the view that abortion backlash was best
understood as a response to judicial overreaching. It demonstrated that
political mobilization against Roe was part of a larger movement that op-
posed liberalizing access to abortion, whether authorized by legislation or by
adjudication. An even more recent body of scholarship has begun to ex-
plore the normative commitments that animated opposition to abortion. It
shows that over the course of the decade mobilization against Roe expanded
into a vehicle for challenging constitutional protections for gender equal-
ity and the secular state. This second body of scholarship makes clear that
the constitutional vision voiced by Americans who mobilized against Roe
at the end of the decade
85
is deeply incompatible with progressive constitu-
tional commitments.1
We argue that in such circumstances the aspiration for "mutual respect"
cannot offer much guidance in negotiating the controversies actually pro-
duced by Roe rage. At root, resistance to Roe poses a normative challenge
114 Justice Ginsburg's influential critique of Roe was published before the appearance
of much of the scholarship discussed in this Part. See, e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Some
Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. REv. 375
(1985); Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1185 (1992).
85Roe's progressive critics often discuss the values animating the antiabortion move-
ment in highly selective terms, as though the movement were merely about protecting a
disembodied fetus. See, e.g., Levinson, supra note 183:
I do think that abortion is special, in much the same way that capital punishment
is distinguished from ordinary punishment because, as it is often said, "death is
special." Speaking personally, I have a great deal of trouble genuinely respecting
those who oppose same-sex marriage or other acknowledgment of full equality
for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. I don't have the same trouble un-
derstanding those, like our friend Mike Paulsen, who oppose abortion. I am confident
that I am not alone in this feeling. There are some issues where I'm more than
willing to say, in effect, "Shut up. You're a bigot and that's all there is to it. You
shouldn't expect to be able to articulate your views, and even potentially win, in
the ordinary political marketplace, because they have been taken off the political
table by the Constitution." But I find it difficult to say this to people I regard as on
"the other side" of the abortion issue. To constitutionalize the issue is, in a pro-
found sense, to treat them with disrespect, to say that the issue has indeed been
pretermitted by lawyers interpreting a notoriously open-ended document.
Progressives who reason about the antiabortion movement in this way fail to appreciate that
the movement has become politically (and therefore jurisprudentially) influential in large
part because of its views about traditional family values and of the importance of religion
in public life. For a discussion of the importance of this distinction, see the text accompa-
nying note 192, infra; for evidence about the complex of views that today energize the
political forces of Roe rage, see note 232, infra.

20071 Roe Rage
for constitutional interpreters, just as resistance to Brown posed a norma-

tive challenge for constitutional theorists of an earlier era. Roe rage requires
us to decide which of our constitutional ideals are worth defending.
A. The Roots of the Antiabortion Movement
Progressives who worry about backlash against Roe often describe the
decision as if judicial overreaching alone inspired the rise of the New
Right.' 86 Their view seems to be that an incautious judicial misjudgment
in the exercise of professional authority produced an extraordinary politi-
cal reaction. Sometimes it is also suggested that this extraordinary politi-
cal reaction might have been averted if access to abortion had been liber-
alized by legislatures instead of by the Court, which disastrously short-
circuited the political process.' 87 We argue in this Part of our Essay that these
views oversimplify the causes and character of Roe rage. Mobilization
against Roe was no simple reaction to a judicial decision, nor was it even
simply about abortion.
It is true that from the moment Roe was decided it was criticized for
judicial overreaching. Roe's dissenters criticized the Court's decision as a
"raw exercise of judicial power,"' 88 and this criticism was extensively elabo-
86
' See supra text accompanying notes 124 & 181 and supra note 182.
'8 See, e.g., Michael Kinsley, The Right's Kind of Activism, WASH. POST., Nov. 14, 2004,
at B7 ("Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial
overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politi-
cized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abor-
tion state by state anyway."). Cass Sunstein makes something like this claim, but not quite
as robustly. See supra note 181 and accompanying text. For a critic of Roe who is more
cautious than Sunstein in speculating that the law of abortion would have been extensively
liberalized even if Roe had not been decided, see JEFFREY ROSEN, THE MOST DEMOCRATIC
BRANCH: HOW THE COURTS SERVE AMERICA 95 (2006).
188Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 179, 222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting):
As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it
does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exer-
cise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant woman more than
the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she car-
ies. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event
join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing
such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.
Justice White apparently viewed the majority as having exerted "raw judicial power"
without constitutional warrant in part because the majority protected abortions of "conven-
ience" that could not be justified as therapeutic under the medical criteria that had emerged
during the century of abortion's criminalization. Compare id., with id. at 222-23:
It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm be-
cause it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience rather
than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her
mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women
whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United

rated in the legal academy and in the press.' 89 But jurisprudential objec-
tion by itself is rarely sufficient to inspire a political movement capable
of altering the complexion of constitutional politics. It is important to dis-
tinguish between claims that function as jurisprudential objections within
professional debate and claims that function as political arguments within
popular debate. The function of the former is to advance professional reason,
whereas the function of the latter is to mobilize citizens to exert political
pressure to alter constitutional meaning.' 90 Because it is difficult for legal
scholars to keep hold of this distinction,' 9' they tend to confuse professional
critique with the causes and goals of popular resistance.
Progressive accounts of Roe rage conflate professional and popular
critique in just this way. Although it is commonly asserted that Roe rage
was a response to judicial overreaching, a number of historians have demon-
strated that political mobilization against the liberalization of abortion began
well before Roe and challenged all efforts, both legislative and adjudica-
tive, to reform criminal abortion laws.' 92 Americans who entered politics
States v. Vuitch, ... dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.
189See, e.g., ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE MORALITY OF CONSENT 27 (1975) ("But if
the Court's model statute [on abortion] is generally intelligent, what is the justification for
its imposition? if this statute, why not one on proper grounds of divorce, or on adoption of
children?"); Erwin Chemerinsky, Rationalizing the Abortion Debate: Legal Rhetoric and
the Abortion Controversy, 31 BUFF. L. REV. 107 (1982) (reviewing major criticisms of the
decision advanced in law reviews during the 1970s); John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying
Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 YALE L.J. 920, 943 (1973) ("The problem with Roe
is not so much that it bungles the question it sets itself, but rather that it sets itself a ques-
tion the Constitution has not made the Court's business."). For similar critiques in the
popular press, see, e.g., David Robinson, Jr., Letter to the Editor, Abortion and Law, WASH.
POST, Feb. 20, 1973, at A19:
The action of the Court is one more nail in its coffin for the grand American ex-
periment in representative democracy .... What has happened is that a handful of
power-accustomed judges has seized control of much of the machinery for adjust-
ing the most sensitive interactions among the 210 million citizens of the land. The
Court appears to increasingly regard its freedom from public accountability for its
actions as an opportunity to rule on the basis of personal preferences of a majority
of its members.
190See Post & Siegel, supra note 26.

191See, e.g., supra note 185.
192See Lemieux, supra note 99, at 227-28 (demonstrating that "there was significant
countermobilization at the state level" in the time immediately before Roe, so that the "pro-
life movement ... was clearly not 'brought into being' by Roe"); see also GENE BURNS, THE
MORAL VETO: FRAMING CONTRACEPTION, ABORTION, AND CULTURAL PLURALISM IN THE
UNITED STATES 227 (2005) ("Roe did not initiate a period of divided moral sentiment over
abortion; it did not serve as a sharp break from the point where state discussions had left
off."); id. at 227-28 ("The state-level reform process had exhausted itself .... Given how
often claims about the need for 'judicial restraint' have Roe in mind, it is striking how
incorrect are the empirical assertions that often form the basis of such a critique of Roe.");
LAURENCE H. TRIBE, ABORTION: THE CLASH OF ABSOLUTES 50-51 (1990) (questioning
whether liberalization of abortion law through politics was feasible once countermobiliza-
tion began; observing that between 1971 and 1973 no states voted to repeal criminal abor-
tion statutes; and observing that a referendum liberalizing access was defeated in Michigan

2007) Roe Rage
to oppose Roe were concerned primarily about the substantive law of abor-
tion, not about questions of judicial technique or even about the proper role
of courts in a democracy.' 93
by antiabortion activists despite broad public support); William N. Eskridge, Jr., Channel-
ing: Identity-Based Social Movements and Public Law, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 419, 520 (2001)
("The pro-life countermovement was already well under way by the time Roe was handed
down[."). David Garrow is quite explicit on this point:
We could fill a very long shelf with writings that claim that it was only the Supreme
Court's action in Roe v. Wade that created an intensely energized right to life move-
ment, and that if the Court had not gone as "far" as it did in Roe, then anti-abortion
forces would not have mobilized in the ways that they did during the 1970s and
1980s ....Thus, in this fictionalized but nonetheless widely-accepted version of
history, the Supreme Court, and particularly Justice Blackmun, are faulted for
committing an act of "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that spurred the right
to life movement and engendered much of the political strife America has witnessed
over the past twenty-five years.
This view is simply and utterly wrong. Not only did the New York legaliza-
tion energize right to life forces, but it so energized them that they almost suc-
ceeded in legislatively repealing the New York legalization statute; only a 1972
gubernatorial veto by Nelson Rockefeller prevented such an anti-abortion triumph
and kept legal abortion available in New York in the months immediately preced-
ing the decision in Roe. But that New York upsurge helped stimulate a very politi-
cally influential right to life upsurge all across the country, in state after state after
state, throughout 1971 and 1972. During 1971 and 1972, pro-choice forces won no
political victories, and New York activists were worried as to whether they could
continue to protect their statute from legislative repeal after Nelson Rockefeller
left the governorship. In the two states that held 1972 popular vote referenda on
abortion, pro-choice measures went down to heavy defeats, and in many others,
legislators took the position that they could let the courts resolve the problem,
that they did not need to go out on any political limbs by confronting the issue
themselves. Thus, by November 1972, when Richard Nixon was overwhelmingly
re-elected to the presidency after mounting a very explicitly anti-abortion general
election campaign, prospects for making any sort of non-judicial headway with
abortion law liberalization looked very bleak indeed. Pro-choice activists feared
that more setbacks might be ahead.
David J.Garrow, Abortion Before and After Roe v. Wade: An Historical Perspective, 62
ALB. L. REV. 833, 840-41 (1999). Only some in law discuss this history, and it remains
underacknowledged in the legal scholarship on backlash. Cf Michael J. Klarman, Fidelity,
Indeterminacy,and the Problem of ConstitutionalEvil, 65 FORDHAM L. REV. 1739, 1751-
52 (1997); Michael J. Klarman, Rethinking the History of American Freedom, 42 WM. &
MARY L. REV. 265, 286 (2000) (reviewing ERIC FONER, THE STORY OF AMERICAN FREE-
DOM (1998)) ("Roe v. Wade not only announced a constitutional right to abortion but also
mobilized a right-to-life opposition that continues to play a prominent role in American
politics to the present day.").
"I It is no small irony that the "strict constructionists" Richard Nixon put on the Court
generally voted in the Roe majority. See George Will, "Strict Construction":An Interpre-
tation, WASH. POST, Mar. 2, 1973, at Al8:
Strict constructionists, [President Nixon] has suggested, do not impose values

other than those clearly and explicitly affirmed by the Constitution; they base
their decisions on the actual words and discernible intentions of the framers; thus
they would not legislate their preferences, but respect the express preferences of
elected legislatures. As between Mr. Nixon's assumptions and those of the skep-
tics, the recent Supreme Court Ruling on a Texas abortion statute certainly seems
to support the skeptics' view.

More recently, historians have begun to analyze how a growing po-

litical coalition against abortion was forged during the 1970s. This new
coalition was concerned with much more than just abortion, and its con-
cerns evolved as the coalition expanded over the course of the decade. By
reconstructing how different groups came to join the coalition against Roe,
and by tracing the differing substantive concerns they expressed as they
did so, this new body of historiography sheds light on how the normative
content of antiabortion advocacy developed.
Recent scholarship shows that the Court's decision in Roe did not
immediately prompt organization of the broad-based conservative coalition
against abortion that would mobilize by the end of the 1970s. Resistance
to legislative liberalization of access to abortion in the years before Roe
was predominantly Catholic,' 94 and Catholics led the way in criticizing
Roe-something that did not escape attention at the time of the decision.' 95
When mobilization against Roe finally did receive official recognition in Ronald Reagan's
presidency, its expression was overtly substantive. Cf. Editorial, The Reagan Court, N.Y.
TIMES, Oct. 1, 1980, at A26 (objecting that "Ronald Reagan's pledge to appoint Federal
judges who share his views on abortion and family relations is ominous"). At the time of
Roe, the political slogan of "strict constructionism" was primarily coded in terms of ques-
tions of race and crime. It did not encompass the issues of gender, family, and religion that
were to become salient by the decade's end.
194 The official position of the Catholic Church prior to Roe was to preserve laws criminal-
izing abortion. See TIMOTHY A. BYRNES, CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN AMERICAN POLITICS 54
(1991) ("At a series of meetings in 1967, the bishops decided to denounce the [ALl Model
Penal] code and actively oppose legal abortion."); see also id. at 57 (suggesting that Roe
helped mobilize Catholic bishops because it moved abortion politics from state legislatures
onto a national political agenda). In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, an encycli-
cal reaffirming the Church's ban on artificial means of contraception. Of course, in the
Catholic community, as in any other community of belief, there was considerable disagree-
ment about both the morality of contraception and abortion and the question of the Church's
stance toward law reform in these areas. See Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., The Loss of Theo-
logical Unity: Pluralism, Thomism, and Catholic Morality, in BEING RIGHT: CONSERVA-
TIVE CATHOLICS IN AMERICA 63, 64 (Mary Jo Weaver & R. Scott Appleby eds., 1995) (dis-
cussing "the controversy over Humanae Vitae [that] opened the floodgates for a tidal wave
of public dissent from official Catholic teaching-on abortion, homosexuality, the exclu-
sion of women from ordination, and a host of other issues").
195See Catholics Warned To Avoid Abortions, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 15, 1973, at 20 ("Ro-
man Catholics have been warned by church leaders that they face excommunication if they
undergo or perform an abortion."); Marjorie Hyer, Catholic Bishops Urge Defiance of Any
Law Requiring Abortion, WASH. POST, Feb. 14, 1973, at A17 ("America's Roman Catholic
bishops yesterday issued a pastoral message containing unprecedented advice for disobedi-
ence of 'any civil law that may require abortion' and pronouncing excommunication on
any Catholics who 'undergo or perform an abortion."); Lawrence Van Gelder, Cardinals
Shocked-Reaction Mixed, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 1973, at 1 ("Reactions to the Supreme Court
decision on abortion fragmented yesterday along predictable lines, as leaders of the Roman
Catholic Church assailed the ruling while birth control and women's rights activists praised
it."); Vatican's Radio CriticizesAbortion Ruling by Court, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 24, 1973, at 14
("The Vatican radio harshly criticized today the United States Supreme Court's decision
that sharply limited anti-abortion laws yesterday."); Warren Weaver, Jr., Landmark Ruling
on Abortion, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 28, 1973, at E3 ("Response from the anti-abortion forces, tradi-
tionally led by the Roman Catholic Church, was bitter, angry and outspoken. One right-wing
Catholic laymen's group, The Society for the Christian Commonwealth, even called for the
excommunication of Justice William J. Brennan for his support of the majority."); cf. Lynn

2007] Roe Rage
Catholics who opposed Roe opposed all liberalization of abortion, whether

through legislation or adjudication.'96 Although few now recall it, Protes-
tants were in fact slow to join the antiabortion movement, even after Roe.
In the early 1970s, most Protestants did not share the Catholic Church's view
of abortion. 97 Mainline Protestant groups generally approved of liberalizing
access to abortion; some even supported Roe. 9 Evangelical groups took a
Taylor, Churches Not United on Question of Abortions, CHI. TRIB., Feb. 12, 1973, at IA5
("The opposition of the Catholic Church to legalization of abortion and to the recent Su-
preme Court ruling is well known. Not so well publicized are the views held by other church
groups, which span the spectrum from leadership in Right to Life groups to establishing
low-cost abortion clinics.").
196 In his 1974 testimony before Congress, a spokesperson for the United States Catho-
lic Council declared: "'It is repugnant to one's sense of justice to simply allow as an option
whether the states within their various jurisdictions may or may not grant to a class of human
beings their rights, particularly the most basic right, the right to life."' Pro-Life Amendment
for Unborn, CHI. DEFENDER, Mar. 16, 1974, at 25. The National Conference of Catholic
Bishops stated:
Abortion is a specific issue that highlights the relationship between morality

and law. As a human mechanism, law may not be able fully to articulate the moral
imperative, but neither can legal philosophy ignore the moral order. The abortion
decisions of the United States Supreme Court (January 22, 1973) violate the moral
order, and have disrupted the legal process which previously attempted to safe-
guard the rights of unborn children. A comprehensive pro-life legislative program
must therefore include the following elements:
(a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the un-
born child to the maximum degree possible.
(b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies
that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.
(c) Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe
and Doe and subsequent court decisions.
(d) Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.
NAT'L CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, PASTORAL PLAN FOR PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES (Nov.
1975), available at http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/75-11-20pastoralplanfor
prolifeactivitiesnccb.htm. It is important to distinguish between opposition to Roe and opposi-
tion to abortion itself. Thus a proposed constitutional amendment "to give states the unquali-
fied right to make their own abortion laws" in 1973 went nowhere, while a proposed "human
life amendment" that would have completely banned abortion made its way into the platform
of the Republican Party in 1980. Nullification of Abortion Ruling Sought, WASH. POST, Mar.
27, 1973, at 14; see Joseph Sobran, Amendment Fever, WASH. POST, Aug. 14, 1979, at Al.
For a history of the different versions of the human life amendment proposed between 1973
and 1983, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human LifeAmendment#Major versions of
theHumanLifeAmendment (last visited May 12, 2007).
197Protestants were divided in their views on the morality of abortion, the use of
criminal law to regulate abortion, the ways law should reflect religious views, and the ap-
propriateness of political mobilization on these sorts of questions. Elliot Wright, Protes-
tants Split on Abortion Edict, WASH. POST, Jan. 26, 1973, at B7 (discussing division of
opinion about Roe in a group of four Protestant leaders, some who "wholeheartedly wel-
comed the decision" and others who were "strongly critical" of it, and noting that the two
theologians who criticized Roe "stand in disagreement with the official statements of their
denomination").
198See id. For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has supported abortion rights
since 1970, when the General Assembly stated that "the artificial or induced termination of
a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient ... and therefore should
not be restricted by law." Presbyterian 101: Abortion Issues, http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-

more cautious approach, 99 but even these more socially conservative

groups did not at the time of Roe view abortion as a categorical wrong. In
abortion.htm (last visited May 12, 2007). In 1972, the General Conference of the United
Methodist Church called for "removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it in-
stead under the laws relating to other procedures of standard medical practice." Joretta
Purdue, United Methodists Agreed More on Abortion Issue 25 Years Ago, UNITED METH-
ODIST NEWS SERVICE, Jan. 21, 1998, http://www.wfn.org/1998/0l/msg00077.html. Begin-
ning in 1971, some synods of the United Church of Christ spoke out in favor of repealing
legal restrictions on abortion and in support of Roe. UCC General Synod Statements and
Resolutions Regarding Freedom of Choice, http://www.ucc.org/justice/choice/resolutions.
htm (last visited May 12, 2007) (quoting resolutions). However, the historically black Afri-
can Methodist Episcopal Church gave "limited guidance" to parishioners on abortion. Law-
rence N. Jones, The Black Churches: A New Agenda, CHRISTIAN CENTURY, Apr. 18, 1979,
at 434, available at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title = 1219.
199Evangelical Protestant groups generally discriminated between so-called "personal
convenience" abortions, which they condemned, see supra note 188, and therapeutically or
medically indicated abortions, which they implicitly or explicitly sanctioned. See National
Association of Evangelicals, Abortion 1973, http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=
editor.page&pageID= 154&lDCategory=9 (last visited May 12, 2007). Divisions among
evangelical Protestants over abortion are visible in a series of resolutions that the largest of
these groups, the Southern Baptist Convention ("SBC"), issued in the 1970s. These resolu-
tions acknowledge continuing disagreement and stake out a position on the reform of criminal
abortion laws between repeal and prohibition. In June, 1971, the SBC declared:
WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult de-
cisions about abortion; and WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion
legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and
her doctor; and WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit
abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened; Therefore, be it RESOLVED,
that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm
through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including
fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and Be it fur-
ther RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that
will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear
evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the like-
lihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.
Southern Baptist Convention, SBC Resolution: Resolution on Abortion (June 1971), avail-
able at http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID= 13 (last visited May 12, 2007).
In June 1974, the SBC voted to reaffirm the 1971 statement, adding:
WHEREAS, That resolution reflected a middle ground between the extreme of

abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder, and
WHEREAS, That resolution dealt responsibly from a Christian perspective with
complexities of abortion problems in contemporary society ... Be it further
RESOLVED, that we continue to seek God's guidance through prayer and study
in order to bring about solutions to continuing abortion problems in our society.
Southern Baptist Convention, SBC Resolution: Resolution on Abortion and the Sanctity of
Human Life (June 1974), available at http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?
ID- 14. As late as 1976, the SBC condemned only the "practice of abortion for selfish non-
therapeutic reasons," and added that "we also affirm our conviction about the limited role
of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expec-
tant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preserva-
tion of life and health." Southern Baptist Convention, SBC Resolution: Resolution on Abor-
tion (June 1976), available at http://www.sbc.netlresolutions/amResolution.asp?ID= 15. Not
until 1980, when fundamentalists took over the SBC in an internecine battle connected to

2007] Roe Rage
1968, for example, the official publication of a symposium sponsored by

the evangelical magazine Christianity Today declared that "the Christian
physician will advise induced abortion only to safeguard greater values
sanctioned by Scripture. These values should include individual health, fam-
2
ily welfare, and social responsibility."
Roe did not change this understanding; nor were those evangelical
Protestants who initially criticized Roe moved to political action. 20 , As
Harold 0. J. Brown, editor of ChristianityToday, observed: "At that point, a
lot of Protestants reacted almost automatically-'If the Catholics are for
it, we should be against it.' ... The fact that Catholics were out in front
22
caused many Protestants to keep a very low profile.
By the end of the decade, however, the views of Protestant evangeli-
cals were to change markedly. Increasing numbers of evangelical Protes-
tants joined a pan-Christian coalition opposing abortion as an expression
of "secular humanism." This transformation is most often attributed to the
efforts of Swiss theologian Francis Schaeffer 20 3 and others who popularized
the critique of secular humanism.24 That critique was widely disseminated
the rise of the New Right, did the SBC revise its position.
200 WILLIAM MARTIN, WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE: THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN
AMERICA 190 (1996) (citing WALTER 0. SPITZER & CARLYLE L. SAYLOR, BIRTH CONTROL
AND THE CHRISTIAN XXXVi (1969)).
201 See Two Rulings Criticizedby Baptist, WASH. POST, June 15, 1973, at B18 ("South-
ern Baptist Convention President Owen Cooper Wednesday criticized Supreme Court rul-
ings that liberalized abortions and banned capital punishment, but he said that the denomi-
nation would support abortions 'where it clearly serves the best interests of society."');
supra note 199. In 1973, Harold O.J. Brown convened a meeting on abortion with C.
Everett Koop, who had already begun to condemn abortion publicly, as well as Billy Gra-
ham and other evangelical leaders; the group he convened opposed both abortion and po-
litical action against it. Brown and Koop then organized the Christian Action Council to
lobby Congress for abortion restrictions or a ban. Brown recalls: "We thought, 'Once peo-
ple realize what's going on, there will be a spontaneous upheaval.' That didn't happen."
See MARTIN, supra note 200, at 193-94. According to Brown, at the time of Roe Protes-
tants viewed abortion as "one [sin] among many," not as "a crucial issue [that] affects what
you think human beings are." Id. at 194.
202MARTIN, supra note 200, at 193.
203MARTIN, supra note 200, at 196. In 1977, Schaeffer made the film Whatever Hap-
pened to the Human Race? and showed it in churches around the United States, accompa-
nied by lectures that sometimes featured C. Everett Koop. Id. at 194. The movie's argu-
ment was that "abortion is both a cause and a result of the loss of appreciation for the sanc-
tity of human life," and that it would lead to infanticide and euthanasia. Id. The film is
credited with changing the views of many Protestants about abortion. Harold O.J. Brown
observed that "nothing has had an impact across-the-board that compares to the Schaeffer-
Koop series." Id.; see also SUSAN FRIEND HARDING, THE BOOK OF JERRY FALWELL: FUN-
DAMENTALIST LANGUAGE AND POLITICS 191-94 (2000).
204See FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER, A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO 17-18 (198 1). Schaeffer's text
opens with:
The basic problem of Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so,
in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in
bits and pieces instead of totals.
They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornogra-
phy, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they

in the late 1970s through a series of "Family Seminars" led by Tim LaHaye,
who in 1979 would co-found the Moral Majority, and his wife, Beverly,
who in 1979 would found Concerned Women for America ("CWA"), the
evangelical Protestant counterpart to Phyllis Schlafly's STOP-ERA organi-
zation. 20 5 By 1980, the ChristianHarvest Times was denouncing abortion
in its "Special Report on Secular Humanism vs. Christianity": "To under-
stand humanism is to understand women's liberation, the ERA, gay rights,
children's rights, abortion, sex education, the 'new' morality, evolution,
values clarification, situational ethics, the loss of patriotism, and many of
20 6
the other problems that are tearing America apart today."
have not seen this as a totality-each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much
larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a
shift in world view-that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way
people think and view the world and life as a whole. The shift has been awayfrom
a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people's memory (even if they
were not individually Christian) toward something completely different-toward
a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or en-
ergy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance ....These two world
views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in
their natural results-including sociological and government results, and specifically
including law.
Id.
The foremost popularizer of this critique of secular humanism was Tim LaHaye, who
dedicated The Battle for the Mind to Schaeffer. TIMOTHY LAHAYE, THE BATTLE FOR THE
MIND (1980). LaHaye describes the five tenets of humanism as "atheism," id. at 59, "evo-
lution," id. at 60, "amorality," id. at 64, "autonomous man," id. at 68, and a "socialist one-
world view," id. at 72. Sex and gender issues fall under "amorality." LaHaye writes:
Many do not realize that most of the leaders of the feminist movement, which pre-
sents itself as the preserver of sexual rights of women and children, are humanists
....They are really after the young, who will be the key to humanist control of
the next generation. That is why-in the name of "health care," "child's rights,"
"child abuse," and "the Year of the Child"-they are pressuring political leaders
to pass legislation taking the control of children away from their parents and giv-
ing it to the state. By the state, of course, they mean bureaucrats and social-change
agents who have been carefully trained in amoral, humanistic philosophy and who
will use the government's power to teach sexual activity, contraceptives, birth elimi-
nation, and permissiveness to children, whether parents want it or not. Of course,
government-financed abortions will be provided for those who refuse to follow
instructions.
Id. at 67.
205For a discussion of the LaHayes' ideas about the family in the late 1970s, see Pat-
rick H. McNamara, The New Christian Right's View of the Family and Its Social Science
Critics: A Study in Differing Presuppositions,47 J. MARRIAGE & FAMILY 449 (1985) (dis-
cussing the endorsement of traditional family structure including male-headed households
and the principle of feminine submission in Spirit-ControlledFamily Living and The Battle
for the Family); see also David Harrington Watt, The Private Hopes of American Funda-
mentalists and Evangelicals, 1925-1975, 1 RELIGION & AM. CULT. 155, 169 (1991)
("Evangelicals such as Tim and Beverly LaHaye lamented that the forces that were produc-
ing a general breakdown of the family were making serious inroads into the born-again com-
munity."); see also infra note 218 and accompanying text (discussing Beverly LaHaye's
anti-ERA advocacy).
2
06A Special Report, CHRISTIAN HARVEST TIMES, June 1980, at 1, quoted in MARTIN,

2007] Roe Rage 417
Although Catholics had initially been uneasy about invoking religious

objections to abortion in the public sphere-justifying opposition to abortion
instead in the language of science and civil rights 27-- evangelical Protes-
tants felt no such qualms. They explained their newly mounting opposi-
tion to abortion in explicitly religious terms; it was precisely the declin-
ing public authority of Christianity that motivated their attack on secular
humanism. Opposition to secular humanism was fueled by concern that the
state was no longer recognizably Christian,2 0 8 a concern that for many had
begun with the Court's school prayer decisions and had been inflamed by
the ruling in the Bob Jones case. 209 Those who came to condemn Roe as a
reflection of secular humanism voiced displeasure at an estrangement be-
supra note 200, at 196.

207See Michael W. Cuneo, Life Battles: The Rise of Catholic Militancy Within the Ameri-
can Pro-Life Movement, in BEING RIGHT: CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS IN AMERICA 270,
275-76 (Mary Jo Weaver & R. Scott Appleby eds., 1995); see also Pro-Life Amendment for
Unborn, CHI. DEFENDER, Mar. 16, 1974, at 25 (four American cardinals presented testi-
mony at the United States Catholic Conference in favor of a human life amendment, assert-
ing that "the right to life is a basic human right, proclaimed as such by the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and by the United Nation [sic] Decla-
ration of Human Rights," "reject[ing] the argument that opposition to abortion is simply a
Catholic concern," and "emphasiz[ing] there is no intention to impose Catholic moral teaching
regarding abortion on the country").
20I There was a belief that:
[T]he enemies of the faith had succeeded in harnessing the power of the state to
their own ends ... evangelicals were left with a distinct impression that the Ameri-
can government was not checking America's drift away from its Christian moor-
ings or its move away from the family, but rather was legitimating those changes
in thousands of subtle but terribly significant ways.
DAVID HARRINGTON WATT, A TRANSFORMING FAITH: EXPLORATIONS OF TWENTIETH-

CENTURY AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM 69 (1991). Sociologist Nancy Ammerman describes
the dynamics of conservative religious "backlash" in another way:
Fundamentalists are interested both in strengthening the American "moral fiber"

and in protecting the other institutions they see as potentially "Christian." God
has entrusted churches, homes, and schools to their care, and they are willing to
enter politics if necessary to project that social territory .... Fundamentalists did
not become politicized until they perceived that the issues with which they were
concerned had become political issues.
NANCY TATOM AMMERMAN, BIBLE BELIEVERS: FUNDAMENTALISTS IN THE MODERN WORLD

201-03 (1987).
209 See MARTIN, supra note 200, at 169, 171-73. On the school prayer decisions, see
Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Almighty and the Dollar: Protestants, Catholics, and Secu-
larism in 20th Century America (unpublished manuscript). Historian Sara Diamond also
notes the influence of the textbook battles of the 1970s. SARA DIAMOND, NOT BY POLITICS
ALONE: THE ENDURING INFLUENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT 65 (1998). Paul Weyrich
has described the battle that raged in 1978 between evangelicals and the IRS over the tax-
exempt status of Bob Jones University as the birth of the religious right. "[W]hat galva-
nized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA .... What
changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools ... on
the basis of so-called de facto segregation." MARTIN, supra note 200, at 173. The Bob Jones
case powerfully merged concerns about race, religion, family, and markets.

tween Christianity and the federal government that had begun well before
Roe and that would later accelerate with developments coincident with Roe.
Perhaps the single most provocative such development was the revo- 2
lution in family and sexual mores associated with the women's movement.
By the 1970s the right to an abortion had increasingly come to symbolize
fundamental changes in family roles. As Kristin Luker famously demon-
strated through interviews of movement leaders in the 1980s, "this round
of the abortion debate is so passionate and hard-fought because it is a
referendum on the place and meaning of motherhood."21I Linda Gordon
has thus emphasized that it was the feminist embrace of the abortion right-
rather than the Court's decision in Roe-that so provoked opponents of
abortion. "A better explanation of the spread of intense antiabortion feel-
ing was that abortion had changed its meaning through its re-interpretation
by the revived women's movement. 21 2 "The major reason for the height-
ened passion about reproduction issues is precisely that they seemed to ex-
press the core aims of the women's liberation movement and thus became
the major focus of the backlash against feminism."2" 3
The association of abortion rights with women's liberation was rein-
forced by debates over the ERA, which Congress had sent to the states in
1972. 211 Phyllis Schlafly, a Catholic, mobilized opponents of the ERA by
arguing that it would constitutionalize abortion and homosexuality, which
she condemned as potent symbols of the new family forms that the ERA
would entrench. 215 A year before the Court's decision in Roe, Schlafly's
"STOP-ERA" newsletter attacked "women's lib" as "a total assault on the
role of the American woman as wife and mother," accusing women's lib-
bers of "promoting Federal 'day-care centers' for babies instead of homes
2 10
See MICHELE MCKEEGAN, ABORTION POLITICS: MUTINY IN THE RANKS OF THE
RIGHT 18 (1992) ("Significantly, it was the women's movement that first galvanized born-
again Christians to political action in the 1970s. After decades of political somnolence,
conservative Protestants organized across the nation to defeat the ERA. Only after the amend-
ment fizzled late in the decade did abortion become the religious right's top priority.").
2 KRISTIN LUKER, ABORTION AND THE POLITICS OF MOTHERHOOD 193 (1984); see
also Pamela Johnston Conover, The Mobilization of the New Right: A Test of Various Ex-
planations,36 W. POL. Q. 632, 634-35 (1983):
In effect we argue that the mobilization of New Right groups such as those op-
posed to abortion and the E.R.A. reflects a desire to protect a threatened way of life.
What is threatened? The traditional American family and the values it embodies.
Who is threatening it? Feminists, humanists, and liberals in general.
212 LINDA GORDON, THE MORAL PROPERTY OF WOMEN: A HISTORY OF BIRTH CONTROL
POLITICS
2 3 IN AMERICA 300 (3d ed. 2002).
d. at 295.
2 4
' See generally PAMELA JOHNSTON CONOVER & VIRGINIA GRAY, FEMINISM AND THE
NEW RIGHT: CONFLICT OVER THE AMERICAN FAMILY (1983) (demonstrating connection be-
tween beliefs about abortion and the ERA among activists and in the public at large, and
tracing both to beliefs about family roles).
215To see how Schlafly systematically focused the ERA debate on questions of abortion
and gay rights, see Siegel, supra note 12, at 1389-1402.

2007] Roe Rage
[and] promoting abortions instead of babies. ' 21 6 She urged her audience to
link abortion to daycare and to see both as feminist threats to the traditional
family.
"By associating the ERA and abortion as the twin aims of 'women's
liberation,' Schlafly used each to redefine the meaning of the other. Schlaf-
ly's anti-ERA frames and networks helped construct the Roe decision that
'
reverberated explosively through ERA debates in the 1970s and 1980s.' 2I7
In 1979, Beverly LaHaye consolidated these connections by founding
CWA, which organized large numbers of evangelical Protestants against
the ERA." 8 The connection between the ERA and abortion was empha-
sized in partisan struggles over the International Year of the Woman, the
International Year of the Child, and President Carter's White House Con-
ference on the Family.2"9 At a CWA conference held to protest the White
House Conference on the Family, critics objected that "[t]he national leaders
of the women's movement, who were working so hard to ratify ERA, were
the same clique promoting homosexual rights, abortion, and government
22
child-rearing."" The objection illustrates the conference organizers' be-
216Phyllis Schlafly, What is Wrong with "Equal Rights" for Women, PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
REP. (Eagle Forum, Alton, I1l.), Feb. 1972, at 3-4.
217Siegel, supra note 12, at 1392-93.
218Beverly LaHaye writes that she was mobilized into anti-ERA action upon hearing
of the 1977 National Womens' Convention ("NWC") conference in Houston. LaHaye was
horrified by the NWC's additional goals, which she summarized as "the 'right' of homo-
sexuals and lesbians to teach in public schools and to have custody of children; federally-
funded abortion on demand; approval of abortion for teen-agers without parental knowl-
edge or consent; federal government involvement in twenty-four-hour-a-day child care
centers and more." BEVERLY LAHAYE, WHO BUT A WOMAN? 25, 27 (1984).
On the ERA, LaHaye stated:
I am not against equal rights for women. I am totally in favor of equal pay for equal
work; I support a woman's right to be free from sexual harassment on the job. What I
am against, however, is an amendment to the constitution that is a cleverly dis-
guised tool to invite total government control over our lives .... The ERA, if passed,
would literally transform every women's issue into a complex constitutional ques-
tion to be decided by our liberal court system.
Id. at 53-54. For more on Concerned Women for America, see Janna Hanson, "The Role
for Which God Created Them": Women in the United States' Religious Right (1997) (un-
published B.A. thesis, Radcliffe College).
219For a remarkably rich account of countermobilization at the decade's end, see Allen
Hunter, Virtue with a Vengeance: The Pro-Family Politics of the New Right 159-68 (1984)
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University); see also Leo Ribuffo, Family Policy
Past as Prologue: Jimmy Carter the White House Conference on Families, and the Mobili-
zation of the New Christian Right, 23 REV. POL'Y REs. 325 (2006); Marjorie J. Spruill,
Gender and America's Right Turn: The 1977 IWY Conferences and the Polarization of
American Politics, in RIGHTWARD BOUND: MAKING AMERICA CONSERVATIVE IN THE 1970s
(Bruce Schulman & Julian Zelizer eds.) (forthcoming).
220Hunter, supra note 219, at 179, quoting ROSEMARY THOMSON, THE PRICE OF LIB-
ERTY 13-15 (1978). On CWA's role in organizing the event protesting the White House
Conference on the Family, see Hanson, supra note 218 ("Specific issues of concern were
the conference's attempts to 'redefine the family' as well as efforts to pass the ERA and
ensure access to abortion") (quoting LAHAYE, supra note 218, at 44-45); see also supra

lief that Americans would mobilize against abortion because they were
anxious about social changes in child rearing and sexual expression.
By the end of the 1970s, in short, conservatives mobilized against
abortion in order to protect traditional family roles. That is why the 1980
Republican Party Platform pledged to "work for the appointment of judges
at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the
sanctity of innocent human life."22' The construction of abortion as a threat
to traditional family values was not produced by Roe, whose bland and
blank opinion, however inartfully rule-bound,222 emphasized doctors' pre-
rogatives more than women's. Roe sought "not to be extreme, not to em-
phasize absolute rights, and not to favor any particular worldview."223
Critics of secular humanism and changing family values seized on Roe
to produce a powerful symbol of the deep social forces they regarded as
endangering their conservative constitutional vision. This vision became
a coherent political movement with the assistance of Republican Party
strategists, who realized that Roe could be used as leverage to redefine party
loyalties. The association of Roe with the triumph of secular humanism
and with the disintegration of the traditional family was envisioned and
22 4
funded by the architects of a newly conservative Republican Party.
In May 1979, in a moment of ecumenical fervor, Paul Weyrich (a
Catholic) and Howard Phillips (a Jew) met with Jerry Falwell and other ar-
chitects of the New Right to propose that Falwell organize evangelicals into
text accompanying note 206.

221See Republican Party Platform of 1980, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
showplatforms.php?platindex=R1980. In 1984, the Republican Party reaffirmed its "sup-
port for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional
family values and the sanctity of innocent human life." See Republican Party Platform of
1984, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1984.
222See, e.g., Eskridge, supra note 112, at 1313; infra note 249 and accompanying text.
The internal architecture of the Roe opinion strongly suggests that the Justices who joined
it had little idea of the inflammatory meanings that would later be attributed to it. As we
have noted, supra note 193, the Justices whom President Nixon appointed to the Court
were oriented to the political conflicts of the 1960s, which involved race and crime, and
did not anticipate the controversies over gender and family values that would engulf the sec-
ond half of the 1970s.
223 BURNS, supra note 192, at 227.
22 4
See MATTHEW MOEN, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND CONGRESS 67-68 (1989):
Initially, the New Right secular conservatives were clearly the leaders. The reason
they were was logical enough: they were seasoned politicos giving guidance and
direction to fundamentalists just entering politics. As New Right leader Paul Wey-
rich pointed out in 1984: 'Five years ago, the leadership was clear, and people
were in a definite hierarchy ... in 1980 the religious right's leadership was to
some extent subservient; they were so new to politics they deferred to people like
Howard Phillips or myself.' . . . The conclusion was all the more natural because
the New Right recruiters were not themselves fundamentalists: Viguerie and Wey-
rich were Catholics and Phillips a Jew. As time passed, however, the view that the
New Right conservatives were 'using' the fundamentalists pretty much abated.
See also Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, Antiabortion, Antifeminism, and the Rise of the New
Right, 7 FEMINIST STUD. 206 (1981).

2007] Roe Rage
a "Moral Majority. '2 5 In his biography of Falwell, Dinesh D'Souza re-

counts that "Weyrich believed that a strong anti-abortion plank in the plat-
form would attract many Catholic voters who normally voted Democ-
ratic. 22 6 Falwell was enlisted to lead the Moral Majority's antiabortion
crusade. Commenting on Falwell's new leadership role in 1982, Paul Brown,
who with his wife Judie Brown had left the overwhelmingly Catholic
National Right to Life Committee to found the American Life League,
227
scoffed: "Jerry Falwell couldn't spell abortion five years ago.
225See MARTIN, supra note 200, at 199-200. In establishing the Heritage Foundation
and the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, Weyrich was funded by Joseph Coors
of the Coors Brewing Company. Id. at 171.
226MARTIN, supra note 200, at 200. There are now several accounts of a meeting in
Lynchburg, Virginia, attended by Reverend Jerry Fallwell, Richard Viguerie, and Paul Wey-
rich, at which Weyrich "proposed that if the Republicans could be persuaded to take a firm
stance against abortion, that would begin to split the strong Catholic voting bloc within the
Democratic Party. The New Right strategists wanted Falwell to pressure the GOP via a new
organization of Protestant fundamentalists." DIAMOND, supra note 209, at 66; see also CYN-
THIA GORNEY, ARTICLES OF FAITH: A FRONTLINE HISTORY OF THE ABORTION WARS 346
(1998):
So it was apparently by mutual consensus, Weyrich and company advising and

Falwell seeing the pragmatic and moral wisdom of the plan, that abortion-the
subject likeliest to reel in conservative Catholics and disenchanted Democrats (of-
ten, but not always, the same people)-was placed at the head of the Moral Ma-
jority's sweeping agenda.
Focusing on abortion allowed the New Right to subsume seemingly disparate religious
groups: "It was Weyrich's idea to blur the distinctions between secular right-wingers, fun-
damentalist Protestants, and anti-abortion Catholics by merging abortion into the panoply
of new right, 'pro-family issues."' MCKEEGAN, supra note 210, at 23. "No other social
issue had the political potential to galvanize the evangelical Protestants whom Weyrich,
Viguerie, and Phillips were determined to bring into the political process." Id. at 21-22.
221 CONNIE PAIGE, THE RIGHT TO LIFERS 225 (1983), quoted in MCKEEGAN, supra
note 210, at 25; see also MARTIN, supra note 200, at 193 (suggesting that Falwell only
began preaching against abortion in 1978). In the 1980s, Falwell would write that it was
Roe that inspired him to political action: "I will never forget the moment of January 23,
1973 ....[A]s I read the paper that day, I knew something more had to be done, and I felt
a growing conviction that I would have to take my stand among the people who were doing
it." JERRY FALWELL, IF I SHOULD DIE BEFORE I WAKE 31-32 (1986) [hereinafter FAL-
WELL, IF I SHOULD DIE]. Evidence from other sources, however, suggests that this account
should be read with caution. In the 1980s, Falwell characterized his views about abortion
as a spontaneous response to Roe, but contemporaneous evidence from the 1970s suggests
a different picture.
Susan Friend Harding's study of Jerry Falwell concludes that she "found no evidence
that Falwell had preached on abortion before 1973; what evidence there is suggests that he
realized the potential and importance of the abortion issue gradually during the late 1970s
and early 1980s." HARDING, supra note 203, at 304 & n.18. Falwell's CAPTURING A TOWN
FOR CHRIST: SATURATION EVANGELISM IN ACTION 53 (1973), ghostwritten by Elmer
Towns, contains one reference to abortion as "murdering an unborn child." Id. at 303 &
n.5. In Falwell's "I Love America" crusade of 1976, abortion was "just one among many
other sins, not the cause c61 bre it was to become." Id. Towns claims to have written Fal-
well's first pro-life sermon, reprinted in Falwell's How You CAN HELP CLEAN UP AMER-
ICA (1978). Id. That sermon carefully asks its audience to oppose laws "legalizing 'abor-
tion-on-demand,"' FALWELL, How You CAN HELP CLEAN Up AMERICA, supra, at 9, 59,
rather than to object to abortion more generally. Strikingly, Falwell's 1979 book, America

In this way a new relationship emerged among Protestant evangeli-

cals, the Catholic right-to-life movement, and the ascendant conservatives of
the New Right:
The New Right was embracing Right to Life, with the state-by-
state volunteer networks and the dedicated core of prerequisite
voters; and Right to Life was in turn embracing the New Right,
with the direct-mail expertise, the money-funneling PACs, and
the splendid surge of fresh reinforcements the New Right lead-
ers appeared to8 have summoned from the ranks of the Protestant
22
evangelicals.
Michele McKeegan observes:
With the 1980 elections only a year away, the new right geared
up its machinery to mobilize conservative Protestants behind the
anti-abortion flag. The first step was to capitalize on entrenched
fundamentalist opposition to the ERA. Thus, several pamphlets
were produced to underline the connection between the ERA and
abortion: Phyllis Schlafly's The Abortion Connection and Eileen
Vogel's Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, a John Birch
Society publication. 29
The social meaning of opposing abortion was decisively shaped by

this new political alliance. Earlier in the decade Phyllis Schlafly had sought
Can Be Saved!, "does not mention abortion," HARDING, supra note 203, at 303 & n.5, even
when Falwell lists the "seven things [that] are corrupting America." JERRY FALWELL,
AMERICA CAN BE SAVED! 42 (1979). In America Can be Saved!, Falwell instead focuses on
"America's Lawlessness: Who's to Blame and How It Can be Stopped!!," id. at 85, which
he understands in explicitly racial terms. Id. at 86 ("Blacks ... are simply the instruments
being used at this time by wicked men with wicked motives .... Without any question, the
Communist conspiracy is definitely the agent or cause behind the effects of lawlessness
now being seen."). Falwell's "first extended treatment" of abortion in print is in 1980's Listen,
America!. HARDING, supra note 203, at 303 & n.5. In 1986, Falwell asserted that after Roe
he "compared abortion to Hitler's 'final solution' for the Jews and the Court's decision to
setting loose a 'biological holocaust' on our nation." FALWELL, IF I SHOULD DIE, supra at
33. A comparison to the German Holocaust does appear in Listen, America!., at page 253,
but neither America Can be Saved! nor How You Can Help Clean Up America contains any
such reference.
228 GORNEY, supra note 226, at 347. The New Right had good reason to want access to
the antiabortion network: "The predominantly Catholic anti-abortion movement offered
many of the same advantages as the fundamentalist churches: a large pool of potential
GOP converts and a ready-made organizational structure. Additionally, the movement was
supported by the healthy financial and organizational resources of the Catholic church."
MCKEEGAN, supra note 210, at 22.
229MCKEEGAN, supra note 210, at 21. Similarly, the Liberty Court, which became the
coordinating group for the pro-family movement, focused on single-issue groups that op-
posed abortion and the ERA in an effort to draw them together. PAMELA ABBOTT & CLAIRE
WALLACE, THE FAMILY AND THE NEW RIGHT 40 (1992).

2007] Roe Rage
to create a grassroots coalition of those opposed to abortion and those op-

posed to the ERA. But it was not until the construction of abortion as a
problem of secular humanism at the decade's end, and not until the infu-
sion of antiabortion advocacy with the goals of the New Right, that oppo-
sition to abortion took on the conservative social meaning that we today take
for granted. Lost in this transformation was an earlier Catholic association
20
of a "pro-life" position with liberal ideals of social justice.
In summary, recent scholarship on the 1970s suggests that resistance
to the liberalization of abortion began before Roe as a largely Catholic
movement; that it was not until some years after Roe that significant num-
bers of Protestant evangelicals joined a pan-Christian movement oppos-
ing abortion as a symbol of secular humanism and disintegrating family
values; and that this movement assumed political shape with the leader-
ship and resources of conservative Republican strategists like Paul Wey-
rich. The antiabortion backlash that has so traumatized liberals reflects a
constitutional vision that would preserve traditional family roles and re-
sist secularization of the American state. 3 ' Weyrich, Schlafly, and other
politically sophisticated actors were able symbolically to associate this vi-
sion with opposition to Roe. This constitutional vision continues to struc-
ture Roe rage today.232
230 The political salience of abortion changed appreciably in the years after the Roe de-
cision. In 1978 Thea Rossi Brown, the National Right to Life Committee's Washington
lobbyist who had been urging the organization to "separate the Equal Rights Amendment
from the Human Rights Amendment," was replaced by Judie Brown, a "confidante" to
Weyrich. Mark Winiarski, National Right to Life, PoliticalRight Interlink, NAT'L CATHO-
LIC REP., Nov. 10, 1978, at 1, 4; see also Laurie Johnston, Abortion Foes Gain Support as
They Intensify Campaign, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 1977, at 1; Joe Margolis, Should It Be
Called 'Life for the Right?,' CHI. TRIB., May 6, 1979, at A6. Many liberal Catholics were
dismayed by these conservative connections and by what they saw as a fundamental dis-
connect between the antiabortion movement and other pro-life issues such as opposition to
poverty and the death penalty. In 1978, The National Catholic Reporter quoted from a
study entitled Are Catholics Ready?, asserting that "Views on an anti-abortion amendment
were much more strongly associated with views about sex and marriage than with opinions
on 'pro-life issues' such as the death penalty." Mark Winiarski, Anti-Abortion Does Not
Equal Pro-Life-Study, NAT'L CATHOLIC REP., Nov. 10, 1978, at 5.
231Consider, for example, President Reagan's press conference of January 31, 1983,
where he announced that he was to declare 1983 the Year of the Bible:
It's my firm belief that the enduring values, as I say, presented in [the Bible's]
pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation .... [W]hen I hear
the first amendment used as a reason to keep the traditional moral values away
from policy-making, I'm shocked .... I happen to believe that one way to pro-
mote, indeed, to preserve those traditional values we share is by permitting our
children to begin their days the same way the Members of the United States Con-
gress do-with prayer. The public expression of our faith in God, through prayer,
is fundamental ....
President Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Religious
Broadcasters (Jan. 31, 1983), available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?
pid=40550&st= abortion&stl.
232 Conservative groups that oppose abortion generally also campaign against same-sex

marriage. At the Protecting Life and Marriage Rally in support of referendum provisions
banning abortion and same-sex marriage on the South Dakota ballot in November 2006,
keynote speaker Alan Keyes called abortion and same-sex marriage "one and the same
issue." "Abortion does at the physical level what homosexual marriage does at the institu-
tional level," he said, explaining that "both go against what God intended." Ryan Wood-
ward, Speakers Rally Against Abortion, Gay Marriage, RAPID CITY J., Oct. 17, 2006,
available at http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/20O6/ 10/I 7/news/local/newsOl a.txt.
For a sample of multi-issue conservative groups opposing abortion that also oppose same-
sex marriage, see the websites of Focus on the Family, http://www.family.org/socialissues/
A000000464.cfm, Eagle Forum, http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/marriage/, Concerned
Women for America, http://www.cwfa.org/coreissues.asp, the Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/SSMarriage.cfm, and the Free Congress
Foundation, http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2007/070122.aspx.
The antiabortion movement's views about sex are perhaps most visibly expressed in
the movement's vocal support of abstinence-only curricula, which urge sexual abstinence
outside marriage while withholding from students both sex education and education in
contraception. Cristina Page suggests that "there is not one pro-life group in the United
States that supports the use of birth control."
CRISTINA PAGE, HOW THE PRO-CHOICE MOVE-
MENT SAVED AMERICA 9, 20 (2006) ("From the seemingly mainstream to the scariest and
extreme pro-life groups, the anti-birth control message is seamlessly blended with their so-
called mission against abortion."). Page shows that the pro-life movement systematically
opposes sex education curricula in schools in favor of abstinence only programs: "The
abstinence movement is often the pro-life movement acting as federally sanctioned 'educa-
tors."' Id. at 73. See the websites of the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/
research/abstinence/, Focus on the Family, http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/abstinence/,
Eagle Forum, http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2005/03-08-05.html. Free Congress, http://
www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050929.aspx, http://www.freecongress.org/com
mentaries/2005/050216.aspx, and the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society,
http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc-acc sellout.htm?search = contraception&opt =EXACT
1.
The Howard Center has authored a natural family manifesto that embeds opposition to
abortion in convictions concerning proper sexual and parenting roles. ALLAN C. CARLSON
& PAUL T. MERO, HOWARD CTR. FOR FAMILY, RELIGION, & SOC'Y,& SUTHERLAND INST.,
THE NATURAL FAMILY: A MANIFESTO (2005), available at http://familymanifesto.net (reg-
istration necessary, copy on file with authors). For example, the Manifesto asserts that "each
newly conceived person holds rights to life, to grow, to be born, and to share a home with its
natural parents bound by marriage." Id. at 16. The Manifesto has been endorsed by a large
number of conservative advocacy groups. See Reva B. Siegel, The New Politics of Abor-
tion: An Equality Analysis of Woman-Protective Abortion Restrictions, 2007 U. ILL. L.
REV. 991, 1002-06.
On the connection between Roe rage and resistance to secularization, Focus on the
Family writes:
The federal courts have created a number of "privacy rights" that in turn are used
to mandate new social policies, such as the right to abortion, the right to homo-
sexual sex, the right to publish obscenity, as well as trampling on First Amend-
ment religious freedoms. This type of activism (indeed, judicial legislation) by
unelected and unaccountable judges was never contemplated by our Founding Fa-
thers and poses grave threats to sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, states'
rights, separation of powers, and religious freedoms. The only way to reverse this
unconstitutional and ungodly trend is to appoint judges whose judicial philosophy
is the same as that intended by the Founding Fathers; judges who will apply exist-
ing law and not scribble in the margins of the Constitution when it suits their
ideological agenda.
Focus on the Family, Federal Judicial Appointments: Article Overview, http://www.family.

org/socialissues/A000000468.cfm (last visited May 12, 2007).
The Eagle Forum wrote:

2007] Roe Rage
B. Minimalism andAbortion
The history we have considered suggests that much more than judi-
cial overreaching is responsible for Roe rage. The backlash to Roe draws
on a far-reaching constitutional vision that transcends the technique or im-
pact of any single judicial decision. This vision exposes an ambiguity in the
meaning of minimalism: Does minimalism advise courts to avoid consti-
tutional decisions that might cause controversy, or does minimalism ad-
vise that courts refrain from constitutional decisions that are inconsistent
with "mutual respect"? 33
On the first interpretation of minimalism, Roe was incorrectly de-
cided because the abortion right was controversial, even if the abortion right
might otherwise be constitutionally justified. Although this account of
minimalism is consistent with Sunstein's desire to avoid social conflict, it
is not credible. It would mean, for example, that Brown, which was surely as
controversial as Roe, was incorrectly decided.
We are led, therefore, to the second interpretation of minimalism,
which would mean that Roe was incorrectly decided because it was in-
consistent with the "respect" that the Court ought to have shown toward
Catholics and others who in 1973 vigorously supported the right to life.
The concept of "respect" must thus do important work, for minimalism
does not argue that the abortion right is otherwise unworthy of constitu-
tional protection. Everything depends on the exact meaning of "respect."
Strikingly, Sunstein himself does not explain what minimalism means by
"respect."23' 4
One possible meaning of "respect" is that courts should remain neu-
tral as between competing and antagonistic constitutional visions. But our
The basic meaning of the Constitution's provisions can be altered only by the
people, who are the ultimate HUMAN source of the Constitution. There are, how-
ever, limits to the people's power. We must follow the formal amendment process
specified in Article V. of the Constitution, and we can alter the document only
within the limits allowed by the Judeo-Christian value system. Federal judges must
recognize fully that civil law/government is only one societal institution among
several (the other primary institutions being the family and the church). A balance
of power and responsibility, undisturbed by federal judges, must be maintained
among these institutions.
Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forum, The Constitutionalist Manifesto, http://www.eagleforum.

org/court-watch/alerts/2003/mayO3/Manifesto.shtml.
Concerned Women for America stated: "The mission of CWA is to protect and pro-
mote Biblical values among all citizens-first through prayer, then education, and finally
by influencing our society-thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."
Concerned Women for America: About CWA, http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp (last visited
May 12, 2007).
234The meaning of "respect" within the context of cultural diversity is in fact highly
obscure. See Robert Post, Democratic Constitutionalism and Cultural Heterogeneity, 25
AUSTL. J. LEGAL PHIL. 185 (2000).

analysis of Roe rage suggests that there may be circumstances in which

no such position of neutrality exists. Progressives regard questions of family
roles and religious faith as individual decisions that should not be im-
posed by the state in a pluralistic community. Conservatives leading the
backlash against Roe regard the protection of individualism as disrespect-
ful of their view of traditional family values and traditional faith. A court
must choose between these incompatible constitutional ideals. Progres-
sives would not find the Court to be "neutral" were it now to seek to placate
anxieties about religion and the family by reversing core constitutional
decisions forbidding bible instruction in public schools or protecting princi-
ples of gender equality.
An alternative interpretation of "respect" is that courts ought not to
decide cases in ways that antagonistic groups might find objectionable.
But this interpretation of respect means that courts should articulate only
those constitutional rights that express uncontroversial values. For rea-
sons we have discussed, this interpretation of "respect" is not plausible.
It implies that the Court should not have decided Brown because deseg-
regation was inconsistent with the "respect" that the Court should have
shown toward the Southern way of life. Just as ordinary legal reason con-
siders the proper relationship between adjudication and democratic poli-
tics before judicially enforcing a constitutional right,235 so ordinary legal
reason also considers the proper relationship between cultural disagree-
23 6
ment and adjudication before judicially enforcing a constitutional right.
It is not clear what the idea of "mutual respect" is supposed to add to this
consideration.
Minimalism's appeal to "respect," therefore, seems chiefly to serve
as a covert judgment about the strength of the relevant constitutional val-
ues. For a court to refuse to enforce a constitutional right because of the
"respect" due to those who might be offended seems to be an indirect way
of saying that the relevant constitutional value is insufficiently important
to merit judicial protection.237 If this is what the idea of "respect" means
in the context of minimalism, it appears to be an invitation to do substan-
tive constitutional work without engaging in substantive constitutional
23 s
analysis.
We do not deny, of course, that avoiding conflict-especially unnec-
essary conflict-may be prudent. It may be proper for judges to anticipate
popular responses to controversial rulings in order more effectively to
fulfill discrete constitutional values. 239 But democratic constitutionalism
235 See supra text accompanying note 168.

236 See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S.
497, 539 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1958) (plu-
rality opinion); Robert Post, Law and Cultural Conflict, 78 Cm.-KENT L. REV. 485 (2003).
237 A good example may be found in the observations of Levinson in note 183, supra.
238 A good example may be found in the observations of Sunstein in note 174, supra.
239See, e.g., Sunstein, supra note 170.

2007] Roe Rage
suggests that conflict avoidance should not become a master constraint on

adjudication, trumping a judge's best professional understanding of a consti-
tutional right. Professional legal craft requires a judge to assess the strength
of relevant constitutional values, which ordinarily demands exquisite sensi-
tivity to context. Minimalism, by contrast, purports to be a transcontex-
tual methodology that seeks to avoid backlash regardless of the specific
right at issue or the circumstances of its application.
Minimalism would thus weaken essential attributes of professional
practice lest the ordinary exercise of craft unleash social conflict. We are
not cavalier about the costs of bitter constitutional conflict. Yet we also rec-
ognize the constructive social functions of disagreement. So long as groups
continue to argue about the meaning of our common Constitution, so long
do they remain committed to a common constitutional enterprise. It has
been rightly observed that our constitutional system consists of "an his-
torically extended tradition of argument" whose "integrity and coherence
24
...are to be found in, not apart from, controversy."" Except in extraor-
dinary and extreme conditions, like those that led to our Civil War, com-
mon practices of argument within our constitutional order channel disputes
in ways that can generate conviction and commitment.14 ' Given the ex-
traordinary diversity of the American constitutional order, the only prac-
tical alternative to constitutional disagreement is constitutional anomie.
Professional legal reason in fact possesses significant resources for
domesticating controversy within the forms of constitutional law. What-
ever Roe might reveal about the Court's implicit hope of settling the abortion
debate in 1973, this possibility was plainly beyond the Court's power when
it decided Planned Parenthoodv. Casey2 42 nineteen years later.2 43 By 1992
POWELL, supra note 35, at 6; see Balkin, supra note 135, at 508 ("What gives the
240
system of judicial review its legitimacy, in other words, is its responsiveness-over the
long run-to society's competing views about what the Constitution means.").
241Siegel, supra note 12, at 19-21 (discussing "steering" and "attaching" as democ-
ratic goods produced by constitutional dispute).
[Constitutional dispute] allows citizens to experience law, with which they disagree,
as emanating from a demos of which they are a part ... it may strengthen law
precisely as it unsettles it, enabling-and, on occasion, moving-those who pro-
nounce law to do so in deeper dialogue with the concerns and commitments of
those for whom they speak.
Id. at 97.
242Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). For an appreciation of
Casey, see William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, The Supreme Court 1993 Term-
Foreword: Law as Equilibrium, 108 HARv. L. REV. 26, 37-39 (1994).
243 As President Reagan appointed Justices during the 1980s and the Court moved ever
closer to reversing Roe, the changing structure of the conflict prompted countermobiliza-
tion by Roe's defenders. See Barry Friedman, Dialogue and Judicial Review, 91 MICH. L.
REV. 577, 665-66 (documenting the rise of pro-choice activism during the 1980s and fol-
lowing the Court's decision in Webster) ("In Webster, Justice Scalia commented specifically
on the political activity designed to influence the Court."). The resulting voter turnout af-
fected state and federal elections. See Alan I. Abramowitz, It's Abortion, Stupid: Policy

it was clear that the Court would have to deploy its judicial authority to
channel dispute rather than to seek to end it. Casey's goal was to draw those
engaged in the abortion controversy into a common discussion about the
meaning of the Constitution.
Strikingly, Casey sought to accomplish this task by advancing what
is in many ways the opposite of a minimalist decision. Casey does not
offer a shallow, incompletely theorized agreement that brackets "the largest
disputes."' 2 " It instead articulates with great eloquence the ideals of both
proponents and opponents of abortion. Casey proclaims that a woman's
"suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more,
upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision
has been in the course of our history and our culture. '245 Yet Casey also
affirms:
[T]he State may enact rules and regulations designed to encour-

age her to know that there are philosophic and social arguments
of great weight that can be brought to bear in favor of continuing
the pregnancy to full term and that there are procedures and in-
Voting in the 1992 Election, 57 J. POL. 176 (1995) (showing that attitudes toward abortion
had a significant effect on the 1992 presidential election and that many pro-choice Repub-
licans defected from their party to vote for a pro-choice liberal candidate); Elizabeth Adell
Cook, Ted G. Jelen & Clyde Wilcox, Issue Voting in GubernatorialElections: Abortion
and Post-Webster Politics, 56 J. POL. 187, 187 (1994) (analyzing statistics from the 1989
and 1990 gubernatorial elections' exit polls to show that abortion had a significant impact
on voting patterns and."was a stronger predictor than even partisanship in Pennsylvania").
Scholars have speculated that the pro-choice mobilization that helped ensure the election
of Bill Clinton may also have had an impact on the Court. Barry Friedman writes:
Although one might quibble with the plurality's understanding of stare decisis in
constitutional cases-the dissent certainly did-it seems hard to gainsay that the
plurality [in Casey v. PlannedParenthood] understood that the eyes of the public
were on them, and that they acted accordingly. Extrajudicially, Justice O'Connor
has been quite explicit in pointing out that in the long run it is public opinion that
accounts for change in politics, and in judicial doctrine.
Friedman, The Importance of Being Positive, supra note 34, at 1302. Neal Devins ob-
serves:
[N]o longer willing to pay the price for its absolutist ruling in Roe, the Court
sought to win popular approval by steering a middle ground on abortion rights.
Remarkably, the Court came close to conceding this point. Acknowledging that its
power lies "in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows it-
self in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary," the Court seemed to believe that
"the public belief in the Court's institutional legitimacy enhances public accep-
tance of controversial Court decisions." This emphasis on public acceptance of
the judiciary seems proof positive that Supreme Court Justices, while not neces-
sarily following the election returns, cannot escape those social and political forces
that engulf them.
Neal Devins, Reflections on Coercing Privacy,40 Wm. & MARY L. REV. 795, 801 (1999).
'44 SUNSTEIN, supra note 148, at 50.
245Casey, 505 U.S. at 852.

2007] Roe Rage
stitutions to allow adoption of unwanted children as well as a cer-

tain degree of state assistance if the mother chooses to raise the
246
child herself.
In passages like these, Casey accords great respect to both sides of the abor-
tion controversy.
If minimalism seeks to suppress disagreement by avoidance, Casey as-
pires to channel disagreement by acknowledgment. It is precisely on the
basis of its forthright articulation of competing constitutional ideals that
Casey stakes its claim to call upon "the contending sides of a national con-
troversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate
rooted in the Constitution. 2 47 By coupling this invitation to a broad and
accommodating "undue burden" standard, Casey authorizes the Court to
respond to both sides of the abortion dispute by fashioning a constitu-
tional law in which each side can find recognition. Casey famously con-
cludes both that "the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained
and once again reaffirmed" '48 and that "the rigid trimester framework of
Roe"24 9 should be overturned, thus authorizing for the first time fetal pro-
tective regulations throughout pregnancy.5 0
This Janus-faced holding represents the exact point of contradiction
between the need of the American constitutional system for a constitu-
tional law that is democratically responsive and the need of our constitu-
tional system for a constitutional law that can maintain professional auton-
omy from political control. Casey understands its authority to rest "on
making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their
principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Na-
tion."25 Yet Casey also frankly acknowledges that the "diVisiveness" of Roe
"is no less today than in 1973, and pressure to overrule the decision, like
pressure to retain it, has grown only more intense."25
2
46Id. at 872.
247Id. at 867.
248Id. at 846.
249
1 d. at 878.
250
Id. at 874, 876.
251 The Court explained:
The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its
decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle,
not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing
on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the Court's le-
gitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in
which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Na-
tion.
Id. at 865-66.
252Id. at 869. The Casey Court worried that "to overrule under fire in the absence of
the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's
legitimacy beyond any serious question" because it would suggest "a surrender to political

Casey insists on the independence of law even as it subjects law to

democratic pressure by dismantling the trimester system of Roe. Casey illus-
trates how a constitutional decision can be politically responsive at the
same time as it affirms a commitment to the law/politics distinction. The
decision demonstrates how our constitutional system negotiates the ten-
sion between judicial independence and democratic legitimacy. The mainte-
nance of this tension is compatible with a full-throated commitment to
the judicial function, as expressed in Casey's willingness to "accept our
responsibility not to retreat from interpreting the full meaning of the cove-
nant in light of all of our precedents."253
'
We do not endorse Casey's application of the undue burden standard

or even the undue burden standard itself. Yet we do believe that the Court's
decision in Casey powerfully suggests that backlash may at times be more
effectively addressed by directly facing moral controversy than by avoid-
ing it. Casey displays juridical resources for social integration that nei-
ther minimalism nor fear of backlash fully appreciate. It shows how judges
can use flexible constitutional standards to channel and mediate conflict,
guiding public dialogue about hotly controverted social practices and en-
deavoring to shape the social meaning of competing claims.254
Casey demonstrates that judicial review and disagreement are not in-
compatible. It illustrates how the substance of constitutional law emerges
from the furnace of political controversy. If progressives shun controversy,
either in adjudication or politics, they abandon the hope of shaping the
content of constitutional law. Democratic constitutionalism suggests that
in the end our constitutional law will be made by those willing to run "the
long race of politics."255
'
Minimalism, like all undue fear of backlash, re-
moves progressiVes from the race.
pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its au-
thority
253 in the first instance." Id. at 867.
Id.at 901.
254See Alec Stone Sweet, Judicializationand the Construction of Governance, in ON
LAW, POLITICS, & JUDICIALIZATION (Martin Shapiro & Alec Stone Sweet eds., 2002); see
also Siegel, supra note 6, at 1546 (analyzing decades of debate over the meaning of the
anticlassification principle: "[A] norm that can elicit the fealty of a divided nation forges
community in dissensus, enabling the debates through which the meaning of a nation's
constitutional commitments evolves in history"); Reva B. Siegel, Siegel, J., concurring, in
WHAT ROE SHOULD HAVE SAID: THE NATION'S ToP LEGAL EXPERTS REWRITE AMERICA'S
MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION 63, 82 (Jack M. Balkin ed., 2005) (rewriting Roe to hold
that "government may not deny women effective access to abortion, and all regulation of
the practice must be consistent with principles of equal citizenship"); Reva B. Siegel,
Comment, in Comments from the Contributors, in WHAT ROE SHOULD HAVE SAID, supra,
at 244, 248 (observing that the alternative opinion is based on a "dialogic understanding of
judicial review" and is "drafted on the assumption that the right it enunciates will have to
be taken up, defended, and elaborated in judicial and popular fora and that this process is
an integral part of the practice of declaring rights-a collaborative process through which
the nation's understanding of its constitution evolves").
211Friedman, The Importance of Being Positive, supra note 34, at 1294.

2007] Roe Rage
IV. CONCLUSION
As this Essay was going to press, the Court decided Gonzales v. Car-
hart,256 in which five Justices upheld a federal statute banning a late-term
procedure polemically labeled "partial-birth abortion." Carhart'srhetoric
is striking. In stark contrast to Casey, which took great pains to signal to
both sides of the controversy that the Court can be trusted to craft a form
of constitutional law that acknowledges their values, Carhartconspicu-
ously affirms the concerns of antiabortion advocates without signaling
similar respect for the concerns of abortion rights advocates. As recently
as the previous Term a unanimous Court had affirmed that the Constitu-
tion protects a woman's right to abortion procedures necessary for her
health, 257 but Carhartholds that legislatures should have "discretion" to
regulate this right. The decision intimates that courts should only review
such regulations through "as applied" challenges generally thought too
cumbersome to respond to the need for emergency medical procedures.
Carhartoffers a new woman-protective justification for these restric-
tions, premised in part on a claim about women's capacity and in part on
a claim about women's roles. Emphasizing "the bond of love the mother
has for her child," the decision justifies restricting abortion to protect a
woman against a mistaken decision to end a pregnancy that she might later
regret. 58 In a passionate opinion penned by the only remaining woman on
256 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007).

257Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) ("New
Hampshire does not dispute, and our precedents hold, that a State may not restrict access
to abortions that are 'necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the
life or health of the mother.""') (internal citations omitted).
251Carhart, 127 S. Ct. at 1634 (internal citations omitted):
Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother
has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an
abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision.... While we find no reli-
able data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some
women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and
sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp.
22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.
Citing an antiabortion amicus brief and common sense as authority that women make mis-
taken decisions about abortion, Carhart concludes that law banning a late-term abortion
procedure vindicates the state's interest in informing a woman's choice:
The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-
evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with
grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the
event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull
and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the
human form.
... The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better
informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant moth-
ers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a

the Court, four Justices in dissent object to this gender-paternalist justifica-

tion. They accuse their brethren of invoking a stereotypical view of
women that is incompatible with a long line of cases recognizing women
as equal members of the polity.259 The Court refuses to acknowledge the
dissent's objection as to the facts or norms of women's capacity, assert-
ing instead that its view of women is grounded in "unexceptionable"
common sense, a proposition for which it cites an ardent amicus brief sub-
mitted by an antiabortion advocacy group.2 6
We expect that Carhartwill inflame political controversy rather than
diminish it. This will be true even though the opinion upheld, rather than
struck down, legislation. Carhart'sratification of a federal ban on a late-
term procedure will inspire antiabortion advocates to push for ever more
far-reaching restrictions on abortion, and it will provoke abortion rights
advocates to renewed mobilization, especially now that the debate over
women's agency and women's roles has been expressly joined. Escalat-
ing conflict will spill into all arenas of politics, in legislation, litigation,
campaign debate, and judicial appointments, as Americans struggle over
whether government may promote hotly contested views about the role of
women, faith, and family in American life.26' In a constitutional democ-
racy, such disputes cannot be resolved by fiat, judicial or otherwise. By
grounding their objections in guarantees of equality as well as liberty, the
dissenting Justices make clear their view that constitutional controversy
will persist even if Roe is reversed.262
late-term abortion.
Id.
259Justice Ginsburg's dissent appeals directly to the Court's sex discrimination cases,
objecting, "This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family
and under the Constitution-ideas that have long since been discredited." Id. at 1649
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting); see also Siegel, supra note 61, at 1029-50 (analyzing the stereo-
types about women's agency and women's roles that make woman-protective antiabortion
argument persuasive); Reva B. Siegel & Sarah Blustain, Mommy Dearest, AM. PROSPECT,
Oct. 2006, at 22 (showing how the stereotypes in woman-protective antiabortion argument
make restrictions on abortion seem reasonable, while diverting attention from remedies that
are responsive to the concerns that lead women to abort pregnancies).
260Carhart, 127 S. Ct. at 1634; see Linda Greenhouse, Adjudging a Moral Harm to
Women from Abortions, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 20, 2007, at 18 (discussing a passage of the
Carhartopinion citing a brief that contains "post-abortion" affidavits of a kind employed
to justify an abortion ban in South Dakota); see also Siegel, supra note 61 (tracing the rise
and spread of woman-protective justifications for abortion restrictions and analyzing their
gender-based reasoning); id. at 1025-26 (discussing amicus briefs advancing woman-
protective arguments like those expressed in the Carhart decision). For a discussion of the
relationship between woman-protective arguments for regulating abortion and religious be-
liefs, see Post, supra note 61, at 953-68.
261See supra note 232 (discussing advocacy of antiabortion groups today in matters
concerning same-sex marriage, abstinence-only education, contraception, family roles, and
the separation of church and state).
262The sex equality claim for the abortion right has a long lineage, reaching back to
the ERA dispute and beyond. See Reva B. Siegel, Sex EqualityArguments for Reproductive
Rights: Their Critical Basis and Evolving Constitutional Expression, 56 EMORY L.J. (forth-

2007] Roe Rage
The controversies about religion, family, and gender that animate

Roe rage are now joined in politics and in judicial decisionmaking. They
cannot be escaped by strategies of conflict avoidance. Respect for individual
choice is viewed in the context of abortion as a partisanposition dubbed
"secular humanism"263 '
by those committed to appointing "judges at all lev-
els of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity
of innocent human life."2" If the dissenting Justices in Carhart were to
turn minimalist, they would simply cede ground to the fervently held consti-
tutional vision of those who, like the Carhartmajority, are attuned to the
voice of antiabortion advocates. The question is which constitutional vision
will influence the Court; it is not whether the Court will express a consti-
tutional vision.
This Essay offers a jurisprudential model, democratic constitutional-
ism, that explores the deep and inevitable interdependence of constitu-
tional law and politics. Democratic constitutionalism suggests what Carhart
so vividly illustrates: Constitutional law embodies a nomos, and fidelity
to that nomos demands engagement that is both legal and political.
coming 2007) (discussing legal expression of the sex equality argument for reproductive
rights in the 1960s and 1970s). Justice Ginsburg began publishing articles urging that the
abortion right be understood as a sex equality right in the 1980s, immediately after the
period for the ERA's ratification expired. Id. It was in this era that "equality reasoning
began to emerge as the dominant rationale for the abortion right in the legal academy." Id.
263 See supra notes 203-206 and accompanying text; text accompanying note 206 (quoting
a "Special Report on Secular Humanism vs. Christianity" in the Christian Harvest Times
denouncing abortion: "To understand humanism is to understand women's liberation, the
ERA, gay rights, children's rights, abortion, sex education, the 'new' morality, evolution,
values clarification, situational ethics, the loss of patriotism, and many of the other prob-
lems that are tearing America apart today.").
264See supra text accompanying note 221 (quoting 1980 Republican Party Platform);
supra note 221 (quoting 1984 Republican Party Platform); see also supra note 59 (quoting
1988, 2000, and 2004 Republican Party Platforms).


Roe Rage - Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Roe Rage - Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Yale Law School

Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers

Progressive confidence in constitutional adjudication peaked during

* David Boies Professor of Law, Yale University.

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 373 2007

for and against Brown on subsequent judicial interpretation of Brown's meaning).

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 374 2007

These historically recurring patterns of resistance reflect a deep logic

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 375 2007

rule of law uncorrupted by merely partisan interests. Yet Senate hearings

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 376 2007

1"See, e.g., infra notes 180-182 and accompanying text.

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 377 2007

I. BACKLASH AND THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONALISM

There may be constitutional provisions of which it can be said, as Larry

14Larry Alexander & Frederick Schauer, On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpreta-

Thus, an important-perhaps the important-function of law is its ability to settle

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 378 2007

prayer. Judicial decisions addressing these issues provoke popular resis-

19Which constitutional issues become controversial in this way is a matter of historical

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 379 2007

20 See G. MCCLOSKEY, THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT 10-11 (2005).

Given the infrequency of constitutional lawmaking, the American constitutional

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 380 2007

constitutional alienation and to maintain solidarity in a normatively het-

democratic responsiveness that we often associate with formal practices of consti-

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 381 2007

within the context of state court decisions applying state constitutional

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 382 2007

public seeks to influence the content of constitutional law. It is a com-

[Tihe amenability of constitutional decisionmakers to influence enables public

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 383 2007

alism allows us to comprehend how the Constitution can continue to in-

OF CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 8-9 (2001) ("[A]n unsettled constitution

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 384 2007

empowered and restricted by their "courtly" attributes.

MCCLOSKEY, supra note 20, at 12.

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 385 2007

Democratic constitutionalism invites us to explore how this dilemma

stitutional Meaning, 33 POLITY 365 (2001).

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 386 2007

tion (although repudiating Congress's dubious factfinding) 6 and by sound-

pdf; Republican Party Platform of 2000, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 387 2007

II. BACKLASH AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARSHIP

The Oxford English Dictionary informs us that "backlash" initially

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 388 2007

white 'backlash' in the North," as evidenced particularly in George Wal-

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 389 2007

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 390 2007

that would never develop if a normatively estranged citizenry were passively

Klarman has advanced an interpretation of Brown that holds that al-

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 391 2007

ever, plays" the "adventurous role" of supporting "the vanguard of a so-

Court rulings such as Brown and Goodridge produce political

Of the three principal reasons he advances for backlash, Klarman identi-

About Constitutionalismrn, 93 Nw. U.L. REv. 145, 172 (1998).

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 392 2007

ordinarily transpires in a space of "negotiation"93 that naturally functions

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393 2007

HeinOnline -- 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 394 2007